THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

The University Faculty Senate

AGENDA

Tuesday, January 29, 2002, at 1:30 PM in

112 Kern Graduate Building

[In the case of severe weather conditions or other emergencies, you may call the Senate Office

at (814) 863-0221 to inquire if a Senate meeting has been postponed or canceled. This may be

done after normal office hours by calling the same number and a voice mail announcement can

be heard concerning the status of any meeting. You may also leave a message at that time.]

A. MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING -

Minutes of the December 4, 2001, Meeting in The Senate Record 35:3

B. COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE - Senate Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets)

of January 15, 2002        

C. REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of January 15, 2002

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

I. ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS -

J. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS –

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid

Change of Campus Location to University Park

Faculty Affairs

Best Practices for Recruitment and Retention of Women and Minority Faculty

Libraries

Trends in the University Libraries’ Budget Allocation

Outreach Activities

Update on the Status of Penn State’s World Campus

Senate Council

University Faculty Census Report – 2002-03

Report on Fall 2001 Campus Visits, Secretary Jago

University Planning

Update on Classroom Conditions

K. NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS -

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

-----------------

Note: The next regular meeting of the University Faculty Senate will be held on Tuesday,

February 26, 2002, at 1:30 PM in Room 112 Kern Building.

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

The University Faculty Senate

101 Kern Graduate Building

University Park, PA 16802

(814) 863-1202 – phone (814) 865-5789 – fax

Date: January 18, 2002

To: John S. Nichols, Chair, University Faculty Senate

From: Louis F. Geschwindner, Chair, Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs

The Senate Curriculum Report, dated January 15, 2002, has been circulated throughout the University. Objections to any of the items in the report must be submitted to the University Curriculum Coordinator at the Senate Office, 101 Kern Graduate Building, e-mail ID sfw2@psu.edu, on or before February 14, 2002.

The Senate Curriculum Report is available on the web. It can be accessed via the Faculty Senate home page (URL http://www.psu.edu/ufs). Since the Report is available on the web, printed copies are not distributed to the University community. An electronic mailing list is used to notify individuals of its publication. Please contact the Curriculum Coordinator at the e-mail ID indicated above if you would like to be added to the notification list.

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

(Legislative)

(Implementation Date:  Upon approval by the President)

Introduction

The Committee on Faculty Affairs report entitled “Recommendations for Emeritus/Retired Faculty” was passed on January 30, 2001 (Appendix “E”) and approved by the President. Recommendation #7 of the report reads as follows:

“The Senate Committee on Committees and Rules should propose the establishment of representation of emeritus faculty in the University Faculty Senate by having a voting member elected from and by emeritus faculty.”

Rationale and Recommendations

The recommendation from the Committee on Faculty Affairs suggested that one (1) emeritus Senator be given membership on the University Faculty Senate.  After extensive discussion in the Committees on Committees and Rules, it was decided that not one but rather two new members be included.  It became clear that both the Senate and the retired population would be better served if there were a retired faculty Senator on the Committee on Faculty Affairs and the Committee on Faculty Benefits.  In both cases, there are agenda issues addressed in these committees that have implications for retired faculty. 

The decision to become more inclusive and have these new faculty Senators not only from the emeritus faculty ranks but rather from all of the retired population was based on the fact that there are many retired faculty who would be very effective Senators but were never in a position to be granted emeritus status. 

Recommendation #1

Change Constitution, Article II, Section 5 as follows:

Section 5

(a) The following persons shall be ex officio members of the Senate: the President of the University; the Executive Vice President and Provost of the University; the Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School; the Chair of the Academic Leadership Council; the Vice Provost and Dean for Undergraduate Education; the University Registrar; the Director of the Division of Undergraduate Studies; and any elected member of the Faculty Advisory Committee who is not an elected faculty Senator.

(b) The President may appoint other University personnel to membership in the Senate on an annual basis. The total number of appointed and ex officio members (not including any member of the Faculty Advisory Committee) shall not exceed a number equal to ten (10) percent of the elected faculty Senators.

(c) The full-time, degree-seeking students at the University shall be represented by elected student Senators as follows:

1. One undergraduate student from each of the ten (10) colleges at University Park.

2. One student from each of the following locations or units:

Penn State Abington

Penn State Altoona

Penn State Berks-Lehigh Valley

Penn State Erie-The Behrend College

Penn State Capital College

Penn State College of Medicine

Penn State Commonwealth College

The Dickinson School of Law of The Pennsylvania State University

The Division of Undergraduate Studies

The Graduate School

Penn State Great Valley School of Graduate Professional Studies

Whenever comparable units are added to the University or created through reorganization, each new unit shall elect one student Senator. The term of a student Senator shall be one (1) year.

(D) THE RETIRED FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY SHALL BE REPRESENTED BY TWO (2) ELECTED RETIRED FACULTY SENATORS.

Recommendation #2

Change Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6(e)1 as follows:
(e) Committee on Faculty Affairs        
1. Membership

(i)     At least twenty (20) elected faculty Senators including at least one (1) faculty Senator from each college at University Park and one (1) faculty Senator from each of the following: Abington College, Altoona College, Penn State Erie-The Behrend College, Berks-Lehigh Valley College, Capital College, Commonwealth College, Dickinson School of Law, The College of Medicine, Great Valley School of Graduate Professional Studies, and University Libraries.

(ii)    ONE RETIRED FACULTY SENATOR

Recommendation #3

Change in Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6(f)1 as follows:
(f) Committee on Faculty Benefits

1. Membership

(i) At least seven (7) elected faculty Senators

(ii) The Assistant Vice President for Human Resources
          (iii) ONE RETIRED FACULTY SENATOR

Procedures

It is proposed that the following method for fulfilling these recommendations be used:

1) The Senate Office will obtain, from the Office of Human Resources, a list of retired faculty members from the last ten (10) years who are living in Pennsylvania and the contiguous states,

2) This list will be cross-checked with the names of those who served on the Senate prior to retirement,

3) From this list of former Senators, the Committee on Committees and Rules will establish a list of candidates and the Executive Secretary will then contact the individuals and ask if they would stand for election to the Senate,

4) A ballot will be established with the individual former Senators (the order of names on the ballot will be determined by lot) who have consented to serve,

5) This ballot will also have a line marked “Other” for write-in votes so that other members of the retired population can be included in the voting,

6) The ballot will be made available to all retired faculty,

7) A simple plurality vote will determine the winners (the first year of the election two retired faculty Senators will be elected). In the case of a tie the Committee on Committees and Rules will determine a winner,

8) Two retired faculty members will be elected.   The Senate Committee on Committees and Rules will appoint one to serve on the Committee on Faculty Affairs and one to serve on the Committee on Faculty Benefits,

9) The term of office will be four (4) years.  In the first year of the election, one Senator will be elected to a four (4) year term and one to a two (2) year term,

10) If a retired Senator cannot fulfill his/her term, the alternate from the last election will be appointed to do so,

11) The elected retired faculty will be full voting members of the Senate.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES
Joseph J. Cecere
Dwight Davis
Terry Engelder
Joanna Floros
Sabih I. Hayek
Deidre E. Jago
Arthur C. Miller
John W. Moore
John S. Nichols
Jean Landa Pytel, Chair
Cara-Lynne Schengrund
Stephen M. Smith
Valerie N. Stratton, Vice-Chair

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ADMISSIONS, RECORDS,

SCHEDULING AND STUDENT AID

Change of Campus Location to University Park

(Informational)

Background

When the campus college structure was established in 1997, it was expected that Penn State’s new academic colleges would offer baccalaureate degrees with the result that campus college enrollments, especially at the junior and senior levels, would increase. The anticipated growth in campus enrollments was directly related to the campuses’ ability to offer four-year degree programs, enabling students to remain on campus for the upper division years. This has occurred and this informational report outlines this progress.

In developing the campus college plan, it was recognized that Penn State’s array of degree programs would increase thereby giving students more options to complete their chosen degree programs at campuses all across the Commonwealth. As part of this plan, students would continue to be free to pursue the academic programs of their choice and to move among the campuses of the University in accord with their chosen majors.

Yet another matter to be considered with the new campus college plan was if an increase in campus enrollments resulted in an increase in the number of students moving from the campus colleges to University Park, this might increase enrollments at University Park beyond the established enrollment target (40,000 to 42,000). Thus, concomitant with the establishment of the campus college structure, campus colleges and the office of Enrollment Management and Administration were expected to monitor the number of students changing campus locations to University Park. Finally, change of location targets were also established for each of the campuses.

Results

As campuses developed new baccalaureate degree offerings, campus college faculty and staff, along with activities in the Undergraduate Admissions Office and the Office of the University Registrar, worked to help students understand the new baccalaureate degree opportunities available to them. Almost immediately enrollments of upper division students at the campus colleges began to increase. Tables 1 and 2 show recent trends in upper division campus enrollments at each of the new campus colleges and Table 3 shows upper division enrollments for the specific campuses of the Commonwealth College. As junior and senior enrollments at the campus colleges increased, the number of students changing from a campus college to University Park began to decline sharply. Table 4 shows numbers of students changing campuses to University Park from 1997-98 to 2001-02 along with the change of location targets that were previously established.

TABLE 1. Upper Division Enrollment Campus Colleges

(excluding UP, Hershey, Dickinson, and Penn College)

TABLE 2. Upper Division Enrollment Changes at Campus Colleges

TABLE 3. Upper Division Enrollment Changes Commonwealth College

TABLE 4. Summary of Change of Location to University Park

1997-2001

Location	Target	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001
Abington	422	471	419	397	309	355
Altoona	860	1001	1082	1041	1004	872
Berks/Lehigh Valley
Berks	356	397	373	375	365	395
Lehigh Valley	182	138	167	125	99	105
Total	538	535	540	500	464	500
Commonwealth College
Beaver	195	200	207	192	139	125
Delaware	245	268	241	224	193	164
DuBois	119	122	113	114	85	81
Fayette	65	85	50	37	69	63
Hazleton	380	428	367	350	346	323
McKeesport	167	197	180	147	124	156
Mont Alto	181	186	195	164	169	138
New Kensington	110	128	88	115	57	94
Shenango	55	43	41	45	38	33
Wilkes-Barre	131	146	119	132	123	121
Worthington Scranton	189	169	153	156	126	150
York	159	147	134	122	123	110
Total	1996	2119	1888	1798	1592	1558
Erie	268	284	267	234	201	194
Schuylkill	109	106	112	137	100	105
TOTAL	4193	4516	4308	4107	3670	3584

When the change of location targets were established for the campuses, questions were raised about what would happen if a campus exceeded its target. A financial assessment was considered if a campus exceeded its target (50 percent of in-state tuition when the target was exceeded by from 1-49 students and 100 percent of in-state tuition if the target was exceeded by more than 50 students).

One campus, Altoona, did exceed its target, but no financial assessments have been levied. Instead, campus leaders have been working closely with the staff in the Undergraduate Admissions Office and with the Vice Provost and Dean for Enrollment Management and Administration to implement admissions and enrollment strategies that will result in this campus meeting its target. No other campuses are expected to exceed the target given current enrollment patterns and actions. All of these matters are under review by the Central Enrollment Management Group.

Looking to the Future

Speculating about future enrollments is always a bit risky. However, given current enrollment protocols, it seems reasonable to forecast that change of location numbers are likely to stabilize at current levels, e.g., 2000-01 and 2001-02. There does not seem to be any indication that any of the campuses will exceed the change of location targets that have been established. Indeed, as more campuses develop additional baccalaureate degree options, it is possible that the number of students moving from the campuses to University Park may modestly decline.

Senate Committee on Admissions, Records,
Scheduling and Student Aid Committee

Deborah F. Atwater
Edward W. Bittner
Ingrid M. Blood
JoAnn Chirico, Chair
Peter Deines
Anna M. Griswold
Geoffrey J. Harford
Luen-Chau Li
Victor Nistor
Molly A. Powell
Ronald W. Propst
P. Peter Rebane
John J. Romano
Carol A. Smith, Vice-Chair
J. James Wager

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS

Best Practices for Recruitment and Retention of Women and Minority Faculty

(Informational)

Abstract

This report is submitted as an informational report for wide dissemination to all Penn State faculty, faculty search committees, department heads, deans and central administration. The presentation has evolved from the work done by the three commissions that are sponsoring this report. The Provost and the President invited the Commission for Women leadership to present this idea to the Council of Academic Deans in 1999 and 2000 and it was focused primarily on women faculty. In 2001, CORED submitted a comprehensive report to the President with specific recommendations for diversifying the PSU faculty. The present version that combines the work of CFW, CORED and input from CLGBTE was adopted by the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs.

Penn State adopted an affirmative action policy in 1974. After 27 years, there is a substantial phase lag between Ph.D. production in the various disciplines and the representation of women and minorities on the PSU faculty. There is a further, more serious problem with retention, especially of minority faculty. In the last 20 years, there has been no great increase in the number of minority faculty, since the attrition rate is comparable to the rate of recruitment. The low overall percentage of tenured women and minority faculty is also of great concern. There is a further problem with the low numbers of senior faculty - male or female at non-University Park locations. A study of all these issues was a major part of the charge given to the Senate Committee of Faculty Affairs for the 2001-2002 Senate year. This presentation is the first of a series of reports that are forthcoming from the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS
Susan M. Abmayr
Syed S.Andaleeb
Kultegin Aydin
Melvin Blumberg
Clay Calvert
Lynn A. Carpenter
Roy B. Clariana
James M. Donavon
Cheng Dong
Charles R. Enis
Jacqueline Esposito
Dorothy Evensen
Mary I. Frecker
Margaret B. Goldman (Vice Chair)
David J. Green
Janis E. Jacobs
W. Larry Kenney
Sallie M. McCorkle
Howard P. Medoff
Katherine C. Pearson
Andrew B. Romberger
Robert Secor
Kim C. Steiner
Mila C. Su
Joan S. Thomson
Vasundara V. Varadan (Chair)

SENATE COMMITTEE ON LIBRARIES

Trends in the University Libraries’ Budget Allocations

(Informational)

At the request of the Faculty Senate Committee on Libraries, the following financial picture has been prepared to update university faculty on how the University Libraries (UL) compares to other national research libraries and to summarize trends in the allocation of funds over the last twenty-three years.

The University Libraries includes the libraries at all 24 campuses. The summary data includes all but Penn College, regardless of reporting relationships. Charts 1 and 2 summarize the current organizational and reporting relationships.

The 1999/2000 budget, for which we have the last full year of data, is summarized in Chart 3. Total budget for the University Libraries, including all sources of funds (state, income-generating, private, fees, grants and contracts), totals $35,368,278. Charts 4, 5, and 6 summarize allocation of expenditures for the UL from 1978 through 1999 and compare those trends to those for all members of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL). Those comparisons indicate the following budget trends:

Salaries:

• Salaries for ARL libraries were 50% of budget in 1978, 48% in 1989 and 49% in 1999.
• Salaries for UL were 59% of budget in 1978, 53% in 1989, and 47% in 1999.
• Thus, PSUL has continued to de-emphasize staffing as compared to collections and operations and is now below the national norm.

Collections (serials, monographs, other materials):

· ARL collections budgets were 38% of budget in 1978, 40% in 1989, and 38% in 1999.

· PSU collections budgets were 32% of budget in 1978, 33% in 1989, and 37% in 1999.

· Thus, PSUL now mirrors the percent of budget spent on collections nationally.

Chart 7 indicates that during this same period, the number of students increased at Penn State, and service demands, illustrated by interlibrary loan increases, continued to go up.

Charts 8, 9, and 10 provide data on number of titles (monographs, seria