 |
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
T H E S E N A T E R E C O R D
Volume 35-----DECEMBER 4, 2001-----Number 3
The Senate Record is the official publication of the University Faculty Senate of The Pennsylvania State University, as provided for in Article I, Section 9 of the Standing Rules of the Senate and contained in the Constitution, Bylaws, and Standing Rules of the University Faculty Senate, The Pennsylvania State University 2001-02.
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 December 4, 2001
A. Summary of Agenda Actions
B. Minutes and Summaries of Remarks
II. Enumeration of Documents
A. Documents Distributed Prior to
December 4, 2001
Corrected Copy – Committees and Rules –
Changes in Constitution, Article II, Section 5;
Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6(e)1; and
Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6(f)1
Attendance
III. Tentative Agenda for January 29, 2002
FINAL AGENDA FOR DECEMBER 4, 2001
A. MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING -
B. COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE - Senate Curriculum Report
C. REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of November 13, 2001
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
Changes in Constitution, Article II, Section 5; Standing Rules, Article II,
Section 6(e)1; and Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6(f)1
Undergraduate Education
Revision of Senate Policy 47-20: Basis for Grades
New Senate Policy 43-00 Syllabus
I. ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS –
J. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS –
Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid
Reserved Spaces Program
Undergraduate Education
Summary of Student Petitions by College, Unit or Location
Major Accomplishments of the Teaching and Learning Consortium (TLC) First Two Years, John A. Brighton,
University Professor and Chair of the Teaching and Learning Consortium
University Planning
Visual Construction Report of Academic Buildings, William J.
Anderson, Jr., Assistant Vice President of Physical Plant
Security Briefing, Thomas R. Harmon, Director of Police Services
K. NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS -
L. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE
UNIVERSITY -
M. ADJOURNMENT -
SUMMARY OF AGENDA ACTIONS
One report was discussed, however, since it is a constitutional change, it cannot be voted on until the January 29, 2002, meeting.
Committees and Rules – “Changes in Constitution, Article II, Section 5; Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6(e)1; and Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6(f)1.” If approved, this legislative report would change the Constitution to allow for retired faculty Senators to serve on the Senate Committees on Faculty Affairs and Faculty Benefits. (See Record, page(s) 10 and Agenda Appendix “B.”)
The Senate passed two Legislative Reports:
Undergraduate Education – “Revision of Senate Policy 47-20: Basis for Grades.” This legislation specifies that faculty should provide written notification of the basis for grades to students within the first ten calendar days of a semester. (See Record, page(s) 10-11 and Agenda Appendix “C.”)
Undergraduate Education – “New Senate Policy: Syllabus.” This new legislation stipulates that a written syllabus must be distributed to students in the first ten calendar days of a semester. Included in the syllabus is the course examination policy, basis for grades, and academic integrity policy. (See Record, page(s) 11 and Agenda Appendix “D.”)
The Senate heard five informational Reports:
Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid – “Reserved Spaces Program.” This annual mandated report documents the reserved spaces at the University Park Campus reserved for academically eligible students in such categories as athletics, the arts and the Blue Band. (See Record, page(s) 12 and Agenda Appendix “E.”)
Undergraduate Education – “Summary of Student Petitions by Colleges, Unit or Location.” This annual mandated report provides a summary of petitions for the previous two years by college and campus. (See Record, page(s) 12-13 and Agenda Appendix “F.”)
Undergraduate Education - “Major Accomplishments of the Teaching and Learning Consortium (TLC) First Two Years.” This informational report, given by John Brighton, describes the strategies and efforts underway to promote active and collaborative learning initiatives at Penn State. (See Record, page(s) 13-18 and Agenda Appendix “G.”)
University Planning – “Visual Construction Report of Academic Buildings.” William Anderson provided an overview of three construction projects (IST, Chemistry, Life Sciences) at the University Park Campus. (See Record, page(s) 19-24 and Agenda Appendix “H.”)
University Planning – “Security Briefing.” Thomas Harmon, Director of Police Services, provided a report on how safety and security procedures at Penn State have changed since September 11, 2001. (See Record, page(s) 24-30 and Agenda Appendix “I.”)
The University Faculty Senate met on Tuesday, December 4, 2001, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 112 Kern Graduate Building with John S. Nichols, Chair, presiding. One hundred and seventy-four Senators signed the roster.
Chair Nichols: 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 October 23, 2001 meeting, was sent to all University Libraries, and posted on the University Faculty Senate's web page. Are there any corrections or additions to this document? All those in favor of accepting the minutes, please signify by saying, "aye."
Senators: Aye.
Chair Nichols: Opposed? The minutes are accepted. Thank you.
COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE
You have received the Senate Curriculum Report for November 20, 2001. This document is posted on the University Faculty Senate's web page.
REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL
Also, you should have received the Report of Senate Council for the meeting of November 13, 2001. This is an attachment in The Senate Agenda for today's meeting.
ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR
Chair Nichols: The Faculty
Advisory Committee to the President met on Wednesday, November 14, 2001 and
discussed the following topics:
Student-Centered University; General Education Course recertification;
ESACT requirement; Proposal for an Institute for Legislative Education; Penn
State’s Policy toward Federal Monitoring of Foreign Students; and an update on
graduate assistant unionization.
The next meeting of the
Faculty Advisory Committee is scheduled for January 16, 2002. If you have topics to be raised, contact one
of the Senate Officers or one of the elected faculty members.
I would like to call your
attention to a couple of door handouts that were distributed today and remind
you of the Senate’s long support for the Martin Luther King Day of
Service. This time last year the Senate
amended Policy 42-27 on class attendance by adding participation in the King
Day service activities to the list of conflicts for which faculty should offer
reasonable opportunity to make up class work.
Would you please remind your units of this new policy and make sure that
they are fully informed about the King Day service opportunities and activities
on Monday, January 21, 2002.
The chair has also
received the report and recommendations of the Joint Committee to Review the
University Calendar and forwarded it to the Senate Committees on University
Planning and Undergraduate Education for consideration. As promised, the report is posted on the
Senate web page. You are encouraged to
distribute and discuss it within your units as appropriate. The Senate has heard and will continue to
hear all points of view on this issue.
Please contact the chairs of those two committees if you have additional
comments or suggestions. And a hearty
thanks to Jim Smith and his committee for the very hard work that they have put
in on this complex matter.
Two weeks ago today, the
Senate Officers completed their visits to locations other than University
Park. The schedule of spring visits to
units at University Park is posted on the Senate web page. In a little over 14 months time, your chair
has visited 23 Penn State locations and all but six of the University Park
units; and seven of the 11 CIC/Big Ten universities. Chair-Elect Moore has been to almost an equal number. In each of those campus visits and unit
visits, the Senate Officers held extensive discussions with students, faculty
and administration. I tell you this not
to look for a pat on the back for enduring this time-consuming and sometimes
exhausting process, but rather to point out that the Senate Officers (past and
present) and a few in Old Main are among the very few people at Penn State who
have this comprehensive internal perspective and external comparison. Most of us understandably see the university
through the lens of our own unit or our own location, but because the Penn
State landscape looks quite different for those of us who have the privilege of
being Senate Officers I thought I would take just a minute or two to summarize
what I have observed in a little more than a year’s time.
A few weeks ago, the
Senate Officers were at the Fayette Campus doing what most Penn State faculty
at most Penn State locations do—looking for a parking spot. In the process, we noted that a prime
parking spot near one of the main buildings was reserved for the Chair of the
Campus Senate. Upon ribbing the Fayette
Senate Chair about this perk, she said that this admitably inducement to take
on a thankless task was not all that it was cracked up to be. It seems that the parking spot is situated
under a tree that produced a certain kind of berry. And the birds in the tree ate the berries and deposited them not
fully digested in copious amounts on her car beneath. We quickly established that this was a symbol for not only Senate
chairs, but all of us who labor in faculty governance.
But the highlight of the
fall trips came at the opposite end of the commonwealth—at the Delaware County
Campus. There the Senate Officers had
the honor of meeting a very impressive Penn State undergraduate. She was a traditional age student, a woman
of color and one with at least a couple of significant disabilities. She is an English major, she was bright,
articulate and had a sunny disposition.
On that day, she awoke at
5:00 in the morning in order to make the necessary commute to campus to meet
with the Senate Officers. She caught a
5:45 a.m. bus near her home in Philadelphia, transferred to another bus in
order to arrive at the Delaware Campus two hours later in time for an 8:15 a.m.
meeting with the other student leaders and the Senate Officers. Although she makes the same commute most
every day, she was eager to endure the early start and the considerable hassle
so that she could register two important, interwoven messages to the Senate
Officers.
First, she said she loved
Penn State. There were other colleges
and universities that were geographically more convenient, but she was willing
to make the considerable sacrifice because of the reputation and reality of a
quality Penn State education. She and
her classmates were delighted with the personal attention they received from
their faculty and delighted with the administration’s support for various
co-curricular activities—in her case support for the gospel choir.
Her second interrelated
message was that Penn State must do better.
Because Penn State is so good, it should be held to a higher
standard. If she was willing to
sacrifice, so too should Penn State.
She politely challenged us to do more and better—not so much for her
because she was close to graduation—but rather for future Penn State students.
She had some specific
complaints and suggestions that I will not go into at the present time. Although, many of them, but not all, were
resource-related problems that would be difficult for us to fix within the
current budgetary constraints. However,
many of the problems that she identified and other students and faculty at
other locations identified are within our power to fix. Secretary Jago will give a more detailed report
on our campus visits and some of the specifics. But, for the moment, our conversation with this young
undergraduate at Delaware summarized for me at least, the umbrella findings of
14 months and 23 locations overview of Penn State. In summary, it is that Penn State is an excellent university—far
better and for significantly different reasons than I would have anticipated
before I became a Senate Officer. But
there is much to be done. Indeed, the
problems we face seem to be increasing in number and in complexity.
As the challenges
increase, so do the importance and responsibility of the Senate. I previously mentioned that our last Senate
meeting marked the 80th anniversary of the first Senate meeting at
Penn State. When reaching such
historical milestones, it often is a good time for assessment and planning for
the future. The last time the Senate
undertook a wide-ranging self-examination and significantly revised its
structure and procedures was a decade ago.
Since then, much has changed in the Senate, in the university, and in
higher education. Therefore, a hard
introspective look by the Senate is once again appropriate.
Consequently, I have initiated a Senate Self Study this year to examine how the body can be updated and strengthened to meet the challenges of that delightful Delaware County Campus undergraduate. It is only slightly ironic that even before our visit to Delaware, I asked George Franz, the Director of Academic Affairs at Delaware, to chair the Self Study. George, as you know, is the senior-most Past-Chair currently active in the Senate and also is our Parliamentarian. My charge to the Self Study committee is, first and foremost, to do some "blue sky" thinking about how the Senate can do a better job and seek ways to give faculty at large a greater sense of ownership in the important work that the Senate does and, second, to make specific recommendations about how to improve Senate organization and procedures. Any suggestions that you have or people from your units might have if you would pass them along by email to George at DE-DAA@PSU.EDU, he would appreciate it.
Another, but related initiative for this year, is to expand cooperation between our Senate and other CIC/Big Ten faculty governance bodies. To this end, I have invited Dr. Joseph Massey, my counterpart at the University of Minnesota, to join us today. Joe is Chair of the Faculty Consultative Committee at the University of Minnesota. He is also Professor and Head of the Department of Wood and Paper Science and a student of shared governance. Although I suspect that Joe probably has learned as much from us in this trip as vice versa, he has kindly been helping us with the self study and we have had a good exchange of ideas. Joe, will you please take a bow.
Senators: Applause.
Chair Nichols: Last, but certainly not least, I would like to introduce one more special guest. The Senate, from time to time, sets aside a moment to recognize those among us who bring honor to the university and its educational mission as a way of helping to remind us of the core values and purpose of the institution.
I would like to introduce to you this afternoon Penn State student, Jeff Hantz. Jeff is from Latrobe, PA. He is a fourth semester student in the Schreyer Honors College majoring in Computer Science. In addition to carrying 19 credits of honors, research and laboratory courses Jeff finds time to play trumpet in one of Penn State's concert bands, a jazz band and the basketball pep band. If that were not enough, Jeff is considered one of the premier wheelchair track and field athletes in the nation. Jeff competed this past summer at the National Junior Paralympics, where he won gold medals in the shot put, discus, and javelin, setting national records in all three areas. He also finished second in the bench press, lifting 275 pounds. He already is in training for qualifying for the World Championship in Paris this summer and the 2004 Paralympics in Greece. Jeff has done all this, while maintaining a 3.66 grade point average. Jeff is in the back of the room. Jeff, thank you very much for helping remind us of the purpose of the university.
Senators: Applause.
COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY
Chair Nichols: Agenda
Item E, Comments By The President Of The University. President Spanier is in attendance today and
has comments. As a reminder, if you
wish to ask a question of the president or in a later discussion comment on a
report you need to be recognized by the chair, please stand and identify
yourself and the unit you represent before addressing the Senate. Thank you.
Graham B. Spanier,
President: Thank you. Let me begin by saying
have I got a parking space for you.
Chair Nichols: I
think I have found it.
President Spanier: John
did say that the Senate Officers were not looking for a pat on the back, but I
had planned to give them one anyway and I think they really deserve it. The Senate leadership is functioning
extremely well at the present time and I just want to say from where I sit how
pleased I am with the quality of the work that they are doing, especially with
their commitment that they are showing in so many different areas. One example you have heard about visiting
the campuses and learning more about all of the needs and variations of Penn
State across the commonwealth. It has
been very impressive to see their work and of course I have the opportunity to
meet with the leadership group on a regular basis, once a month formally, and
then as needed at other times. And it
is really going very well right now and I think they do deserve our thanks.
I also want to
second something that John mentioned.
There are really only a few of us in the university who have actually
been around to all the campuses. Now I
would not want to suggest that you all pack your bags and leave on a month long
tour of all of our campuses, but I cannot tell you how rewarding it is to
occasionally visit another campus, one that you may not be familiar with at the
university. Particularly, folks at
University Park rarely set foot on another campus and it is quite amazing to
get a feel for how Penn State operates in so many different locations. I have never run into anybody who has
visited one of our other campuses and not come away feeling more enlightened
about the university as well as even more proud than they were before about
what all we do for our students and the many other constituencies that we
serve. I think it is fair to say that
any of you would be welcomed with open arms if you had the inclination to visit
another campus. I know I always am and
I do not think it is just because I am the president of the university. I think that they would gladly welcome
anyone with open arms and you should all think about doing that at some point.
I want to report
that the state of the university in my opinion is excellent right now. And I say that despite the fact that several
million dollars of this year’s current appropriation have been frozen because
of the financial circumstances around the state. Despite that cut which we have had, I am really quite pleased
with all of the progress that we are making in so many different arenas and the
quality of the educational experiences that we are providing for our
students. I feel very good about what
is happening at Penn State right now. I
think one continuing indication of our overall health is not only the official
enrollments that you have all probably read about for this fall, but the
continuing flow of applications for this coming academic year. As of the report that I saw this morning—and
we get a weekly comprehensive report of what the applications are
system-wide—we are right on track with where we have been in the last couple of
years, maybe a little bit ahead.
Interest in Penn State continues to be very strong. There are a couple of areas that account for
what increase we see right now. They
are increases in the flow of graduate applications, which is something that
many of us here predicted of course when the economy is in a bit of a downturn
and there is recessionary indications out there, and many people as they are
beginning to complete their baccalaureate degree lean a little more in the
direction of graduate school versus competing for one of the positions in the
job market. So we do see a little more
activity in the level of graduate applications and we are also seeing
significant increase in interest in Penn College, which you also might expect
with students coming out of high school and looking for the excellent applied
opportunities that are available there.
But enrollments are strong and our following all of the assumptions and
planning targets that we had at University Park, at our campuses—graduate and
undergraduate—we feel very good about what we have achieved in that particular
area. We are however engaged in a
number of different areas associated with long range planning. Most of this occurs under the purview of
Rodney Erickson, our Executive Vice President and Provost. I think there are two things that are pretty
much on the table right now. We have a
deadline coming up pretty soon for units to have their diversity plans, the
updates, the mid-course update on the five year diversity plans coming in
currently. Those will be very carefully
reviewed, analyzed, and feedback will be reported during the balance of this
academic year. Another important area
of planning that is going on is in the area of the finances of the
university. We are unmistakably in the
middle of a long-term trend of state appropriations that are not keeping up
with our needs, let alone our aspirations.
Currently, only about 14 percent of the university’s budget comes via
state appropriation and while we are going to continue to make our very best
case and work very, very hard with the legislature on meeting Penn State’s needs,
we cannot assume that the state is going to be able to do for us what we need
to do. Given that our other principle
source of revenue, besides appropriation is tuition, we are engaged in a
long-term analysis of tuition pricing at the university. Looking at our needs in relation to the cost
of operating the university, and again Rodney Erickson is the person overseeing
that task force--we are working towards involving the university Board of
Trustees very substantially in that discussion in the coming months. The task force has had the benefit of input
from students, faculty, staff and members of the administration so we are very
eager to see how that turns out. But
certainly we need to take a long-term five, ten, twenty-year kind of look at
how we are going to support the quality of education, research, and service
that we expect at the university.
I know that many of
you are on committees that are busy at work on giving input into the
discussions about the university calendar.
John Cahir reported to me on the way in that there were some discussions
this morning and that there continues to be progress and feedback in that
area. At some point, I am not exactly
sure when, but at some point soon, I think all of that input and any further
Senate discussion will be forwarded to us and Rodney Erickson and I as well as
other colleagues will then try to make some sense out of it and do the right
thing, whatever that is. I do not know
what the right thing is. You know I am
not bashful so if I had this figured out at any point I would have told you or
the committees working on it in the beginning.
But it is a very complex issue because there are many, many different
perspectives, many different opinions, and I dare say there are also probably
some variables that we might not even be giving sufficient weight to in the
discussions. I am hearing from campus
executive officers, from students, and others about what should go into the
discussion. So all I can say about the
calendar is that all input is welcome. We
really do look forward to receiving the Senate recommendations. About the only thing that I have concluded
is that the current calendar is not optimal.
There are just too many problems around the edges of what we are trying
to do right now and so some things have to change. I am just not sure what the better system is right now and I say
that as I have said in my State of the University Address only to point out
that I am very receptive to receiving what recommendations you have and then
trying to come up with a better mousetrap for that situation.
You have all heard
if you have read the newspapers or perhaps heard directly that John Cahir has
announced his retirement. It is not
imminent. It is coming sometime next
summer at the end of the summer and I must say we have very mixed feelings
about that because I think John probably has tenure and longevity on just about
all of us in this room. I say that in a
nice way John. Yeah, he is old I
guess… I have known John for a very
long time. We served as associate deans
together and I thought he was old then…and that was more than twenty years ago
so you know I guess we got to give him a break and let him retire at some
point. The good news is that it is
still a few months off and I know John is not going to be a lame duck, he is
going to continue to work very closely with the many Senate committees that he
works with through this academic year and we will have a chance I am sure to
thank him later. But for those of you
who are in the mode of wanting to commiserate about this and express your
concerns, why, you can start on that any time.
John is here and I will say now as I will say at every opportunity
throughout the year how much John Cahir has meant to this university and where
it is at today.
The last thing I
would like to say before I take your questions is get those final exam grades
in on time, please. And get those
papers graded and then after you are all done with that I wish you a very happy
holiday and hope you rest up over the break and come back ready to go for the
spring semester. And now your
questions?
JoAnn Chirico,
Beaver Campus: Many students at my campus as well as myself
are concerned about our perception from national news stories that a student on
campus was convicted of either rape or sexual assault and is still present on
campus. Could you please fill us in to
the picture of what the actual conviction was, what the student’s status is and
could I take a message from you back to my students about your concern for
their safety?
President
Spanier: Let me say first of all that I hope it is true that everyone in this room
associated with the Penn State community abhors sexual assault and will not
tolerate it, condone it, or accept that it should be present on any of our
campuses. I think that should go
without saying and I wanted to say that first.
Having said that I am going to tell you very little. I am not going to attempt to answer the
questions you have asked for a couple of reasons that should be obvious to
people in the university community and beyond but, for some reason are
not. First of all, there are a lot of
people who have popped up as experts about what is going on who think they know
what all the facts are and I am not sure that they do. This university will do its best to follow
our judicial affairs procedures. Allow
them to work. Allow due process to
work. Allow the process to come to an
expeditious conclusion and do everything we can to ensure what would be fair
and not subject to outside influences.
I am not surprised, but I am troubled by some of the mail I have
received, email I have received, people showing up in my office demanding to
argue a case one way or another. We
cannot run a university on the basis of public opinion polls, on the basis of
political forces who choose up sides on the guilt or innocence of a particular
student conduct violation. We cannot
have legislative resolutions or editorial writers to tell us how to act in a
particular case. Some of the attempted
interference in the university judicial affairs process is very
surprising. It would be akin, I
suppose, to jury tampering or someone barging into a judges chambers and
telling the judge how to rule on a particular case. We just cannot go down that road. I hope you understand that.
I hope you understand that we have a judicial affairs system within the
university. Maybe some people do not
like parts of it, some people do, some people think we try too many cases, and
some people have lots of different opinions about it. Every year we reassess it, we fine-tune it, we study it—we
actually have one of the better judicial affairs conduct systems that exist at
a university. It operates under a
director of the Office of Judicial Affairs and that person is overseen by the
Vice President for Student Affairs. We
have to follow certain processes that are in place and we will do that. We cannot let outside influences interfere
with judgments that are made during that process. I say all of that to you now without even knowing the outcome at
this moment. We will have a problem in
that there are federal laws which govern what we can say about student conduct
matters, and people who want to know things that cannot be and never will be
public, just have to accept that.
Perhaps there are some things that can become public or that some people
involved in the process can themselves choose to make public. So we just have to ask your understanding
with that and allowing that to happen and I will trust our staff in the Office
of Judicial Affairs to do this right.
And whatever they end up with, I assume they will end up with something
pretty soon, and my inclination would be to be supportive of it. I should also say that the process does not
call for the president of the university to insert himself into the process at
some point along the way. This decision
is actually made by that office and if there are appeals along the way they
will go to the Vice President for Student Affairs. I do not have a role in this personally, but I am prepared to stand
up, defend the process, and to do everything I can to make sure that the
integrity of the process is maintained.
So for those of you who would be inclined to write me an email, save
your breath so to speak, it will not enter into the decision of the
process. For anyone who is involved in
letter writing campaigns on the different sides of this matter, it will not
influence the process. We will not be
granting appointments to people to come in and argue the case from their
perspective. We will follow the
processes in place. Nor will I be
responding to further media inquiries on this matter. I have said just about everything I can think of to say, so for
reporters who are here, do not bother sending me an email two hours from now
saying, “I want to ask you further to explain the nuance of what you said
there.” I have spoken extemporaneously,
not from a script, so I hope somewhere in there you will kind of get the
message.
Chair Nichols:
Other comments and questions for the president?
Stephen M. Smith,
College of Agricultural Sciences: This is sort of a mundane question. Back to your issue of budgets, can you give
us an estimate of how many of these millions we lost and an assessment of how
permanent this is and how these losses were distributed among colleges and
departments?
President Spanier:
Well, let me say that on many days I love the mundane questions given
some other things that are out there.
But that is actually a very important question. We have had frozen and do not expect to
receive back approximately $3.5 million out of this year’s appropriation. It is about one percent of our
appropriation. In addition, we believe
that some additional amount, it is hard to identify exactly what it is but we
have some estimates, it might be a comparable amount was actually lost because
it was in some other budget that was part of the $200 million that Governor
Ridge identified before he left. It was
money that had not yet been allocated but in the normal course of events would
have come to Penn State but perhaps through a different state agency or a
different process yet to be determined.
So it was a multi-million dollar hit for us. Now the way it has unfolded is that it is a temporary pull back
out of our current budget and we have treated it that way. So we have not pulled permanent money back
from anybody on campus. Centrally and
within the different academic units of the campuses, colleges and so on, we
have asked people to just deal with their fair share of that amount. When the legislature begins the budgetary
and appropriation process in February, we anticipate we will go back to the
base that we saw last year and that further decisions will be made from that
point. But it does not appear based on
current revenue projections that the state is going to have a huge amount of
new money to deal with. So we expect to
be in this somewhat constrained economic environment for the university for
awhile to come, and that of course puts more pressure on us on the tuition side
and we worry about that for obvious reasons.
That’s it? Okay, this could be
your last chance for the year 2001.
Okay, thank you very much.
Chair Nichols:
Thank you, President Spanier.
Agenda Item F, Forensic Business there is none. Agenda Item G, Unfinished Business there is
none.
FORENSIC BUSINESS
None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
LEGISLATIVE REPORTS
Chair Nichols: We are down to H, Legislative Reports. Senate Committee on Committees and Rules, Changes in Constitution, Articles and Sections as listed regarding retired and emeritus faculty. Jean Landa Pytel, Chair of the Senate Committee on Committees and Rules will present the report. This is a proposed Constitutional change and therefore the report must lie on the table until the January 29, 2002 meeting. What that means is that we will have a discussion today but no vote will be taken.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES
Changes in Constitution, Article II, Section 5; Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6(e)1; and Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6(f)1
Jean Landa Pytel, Chair, Senate Committee on Committees and Rules
Jean Landa Pytel, College of Engineering: Thank you. You have all had a chance to look at the report as it is part of your Agenda. It came directly from a proposal that is included here as part of the introduction. This was a Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs report that was titled, “Recommendation for Emeritus/Retired Faculty,” that was passed in January of this year. Before I forget, we had a slight two-letter editorial correction. On page four that is procedures number 10 that says, “If a retired Senator cannot fulfill his/her term,” will you please change the word “the” to “an”. “An alternate from the last election will be appointed to do so”. The idea here is if the alternate is not willing to serve then we would go to the next alternate. Thank you. I will stand for questions as you should have read it yourselves.
Chair Nichols: Questions for Jean? It will be on the Agenda for the next meeting.
Jean Landa Pytel: Thank you.
Chair Nichols: Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education. “Revision of Senate Policy 47-20: Basis for Grades” that is Appendix “C” and Laura Pauley, Chair of the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education will present the report.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
Revision of Senate Policy 47-20: Basis for Grades
Laura L. Pauley, Chair, Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education
Laura L. Pauley, College of Engineering: The Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education has two related policies to be reviewed today. The first policy is “Basis for Grades”. The “Basis for Grades” is Policy 47-20 currently printed and we have made the modification that students should be notified in the first ten calendar days of basis for grades. This wording mirrors the wording in other policies including, the examination policy that students must be notified in the first ten calendar days. Are there any questions?
Chair Nichols: Docile group today. No questions? All right, it is a committee report so it is moved and seconded so we are at the question. All those in favor of the report, please signify by saying, "aye."
Senators: Aye.
Chair Nichols: Any opposed, "nay"? The aye’s have it and the motion is carried. The next one is “New Senate Policy 43-00: Syllabus” that’s Appendix “D”.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
New Senate Policy 43-00: Syllabus
Laura L. Pauley, Chair, Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education
Laura L. Pauley: The “Syllabus” policy is a new policy and what it states is, the place where written notification should be given to the student is the syllabus. So we have put together several different policies including the one just approved “Basis for Grades,” “General Examination Policy,” “Non-Final Examinations Policy,” and “Academic Integrity,” altogether into this one document. There is a phrase, “changes to the syllabus may be made during the semester shall also be given to the student in writing”. So this is not a permanent contract, but it can be modified during the semester. Any questions?
Dan T. Brinker, College of Arts and Architecture: A couple of concerns that came up is if we could define written and distributed. The question is, that an online course for example, on the web considered written? And is distributed, simply can it be made available is that considered distributed? And I think that is the biggest issue that we have in fact and that I am concerned about with this policy.
Laura L. Pauley: We discussed this in the committee and our view was that by saying a written syllabus we considered electronic web sites to also be written text.
Dan T. Brinker: Does that also include the distributed portion? If it is simply made available is that…
Laura L. Pauley: Right. That was our interpretation. That it was an inclusive word.
Chair Nichols: Other comments or questions? Seeing none, we are at the question. This is a vote on whether to approve the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education report for “New Senate Policy 43-00: Syllabus”. All those in favor of the report, please signify by saying, "aye."
Senators: Aye.
Chair Nichols: Any opposed, "nay"? The aye’s have it and the motion is carried. Thank you, Laura. Agenda Item I, Advisory/Consultative Reports there are none.
ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS
None
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
Summary of Student Petitions by College, Unit or Location
SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
Major Accomplishments of the Teaching and Learning Consortium (TLC) First Two Years
SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY PLANNING
Visual Construction Report of Academic Buildings
Anthony J. Baratta, Chair, Senate Committee on University Planning