THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

The University Faculty Senate

AGENDA

Tuesday, January 30, 2001, 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 5, 2000, Meeting in The Senate Record 34:3

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

of January 16, 2001

C. REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of January 16, 2001

D. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR -

E. COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY -

F. FORENSIC BUSINESS -

G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS –

Committees and Rules

Revision of Constitution, Article II, Section 1 (Membership)

H. LEGISLATIVE REPORTS –

Committees and Rules

Revision to Bylaws, Article III, Section 4

I. ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS –

Faculty Affairs

Report on the Impact on Faculty Development of Hiring

Faculty off the Tenure Track

Recommendations for Emeritus/Retired Faculty

University Planning

Recommendation for Developing an Ecologically Sustainable University

J. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS -

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid

Reserved Spaces Program

Faculty Affairs

UniSCOPE 2000 Presentation

Senate Council

University Faculty Census Report – 2001-2002

Undergraduate Education

Summary of Student Petitions by College, Unit or Location

1999-2000 First-Year Seminars: The Inaugural Year in Review

Non-Returning Students Report, Spring 1998 to Fall 1998

University Planning

Long-term Debt and Debt Service of the University

A Grand Destiny, The Penn State Campaign, Rodney Kirsch, Vice President for

Development and Alumni Relations

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 27, 2001, at 1:30 PM in Room 112 Kern Building.

The Informational Report entitled “A Grand Destiny, The Penn State Campaign” will

be presented as the first informational report (under J.) on the floor of the Senate.

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 19, 2001

To: Cara-Lynne Schengrund, Chair, University Faculty Senate

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

The Senate Curriculum Report, dated January 16, 2001, 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 15, 2001.

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

Revision of Constitution, Article II, Section 1 (Membership)

(Legislative)

(Implementation Date: Upon approval by the President)

Recommendation

The Senate Committee on Committees and Rules proposes the following change to the Constitution, Article II, Section 1:

Article II

Section 1

Membership

For the purpose of defining the electorate of the Senate, the term University Faculty shall mean all persons who are not candidates for degrees at Penn State, who hold full time academic appointments, and who fall into one of the following categories: those holding professorial, research (excluding noncontinuing research appointees), or librarian titles and those who are full-time instructors, senior lecturers and lecturers, or assistant librarians.

Rationale

This rule has often been violated in the past, most often when people have sought graduate degrees in Higher Education. That, however, should not be a rationale, but support for the rationale, namely that the requirement is not necessary. The fear is that Senators will be guilty of a conflict of interest, but that is often the nature of whole committees such as Faculty Affairs and Faculty Benefits. The addition of the Dickinson School of Law to Penn State has allowed professors in a number of fields to desire and pursue law degrees. They should not be penalized for this. Since Senators are asked by the Senate to disclose such degree pursuit, it would be simple for the voting units to request such information and for the electorate to make their own decisions bearing this information in mind if they wish.

COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES

Mark A. Casteel, Vice-Chair

Joseph J. Cecere

Dwight Davis

Terry Engelder

Sabih I. Hayek

Deidre E. Jago, Chair

John R. Lippert

Arthur C. Miller

John W. Moore

Murry R. Nelson

John S. Nichols

Jean Landa Pytel

Dennis C. Scanlon

Cara-Lynne Schengrund

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES

Revision to Bylaws, Article III, Section 4

(Legislative)

[Implementation Date: Upon Passage by the Senate]

INTRODUCTION

As the University Faculty Senate becomes more complex, it is sometimes necessary to introduce added information in the Constitution, Bylaws and Standing Rules of the University Faculty Senate. Therefore, the proposed change in the Bylaws is offered to assure that election results are forwarded to the Senate Office in a timely manner.

PROPOSED

Proposed Amendment to Article III, Section 4 of the Bylaws:

The proposed changes are in caps:

“The names of the newly elected and newly appointed Senators to serve during the following year shall be reported TO THE SENATE OFFICE BY THE FIRST FRIDAY IN FEBRUARY IN ORDER TO BE REPORTED to the Senate at the last regular meeting of the academic year.”

RATIONALE

Despite memos from the Senate Office encouraging these elections to be held and results reported, there are units that overlook these requests and the Senate agenda is then printed with gaps where the listing of new Senators is given. This is both embarrassing to the Senate and to the units, and seems unnecessary. By printing clear guidelines in the Bylaws, units can plan precisely when they need to meet to address the election procedures. There are and will be no penalty, of course, for failure to comply in time, but it is hoped that this will make Senate procedures run more smoothly.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES

Mark A. Casteel, Vice-Chair

Joseph J. Cecere

Dwight Davis

Terry Engelder

Sabih I. Hayek

Deidre E. Jago, Chair

John R. Lippert

Arthur C. Miller

John W. Moore

Murry R. Nelson

John S. Nichols

Jean Landa Pytel

Dennis C. Scanlon

Cara-Lynne Schengrund

COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS

Report on the Impact on Faculty Development of Hiring Faculty off the Tenure Track

(Advisory/Consultative)

[Implementation: Upon Approval by the President]

INTRODUCTION

Concern has been growing at Penn State over the potential negative effects of hiring faculty off the tenure track in either full-time (fixed term-I/ FT-I) or part-time (fixed term-II/ FT-II) positions. As a result, Intra-University Relations was charged with determining the extent to which FT-I and FT-II faculty are utilized at Penn State and Faculty Affairs was charged with determining how this affects faculty development and the academic climate. In the fall of 1999, the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs conducted a limited pilot survey related to this issue. A comprehensive University-wide survey was beyond the resources of Faculty Affairs. The pilot study was a preliminary assessment to allow this issue to be brought forward for further consideration and discussion. The study was completed in the spring of 2000. Attachment 1 is a summary of the compiled results.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based in part on the results of this study, the Committee on Faculty Affairs is making the following recommendations.

1.) Individual units should evaluate trends in the use of their fixed term faculty with the goal of defining how to balance meeting the needs of new programs, research, enrollment, and budget constraints with the need to maintain the academic environment and its standards. The Provost should develop a means to oversee the trends across the University for a perspective on their impact on the educational and academic environment of the University as a whole.

2.) In its strategic plan, each academic unit should describe its goals for hiring faculty off the tenure track in either full-time (FT-I) or part-time (FT-II) positions. The plan should describe how the different kinds of faculty help achieve or contribute to the unit’s goals and objectives.

3.) Whenever a faculty member is hired, whether on or off the tenure track, the letter of offer should include the new hire’s responsibility to the unit and the unit’s responsibility to the new hire. In an effort to promote inclusiveness, the expectation is that the new hire and other faculty in the unit will understand how the new appointment is relevant to the unit’s strategic plan. Adequate resources should be allocated to support newly hired faculty in accordance with his/her qualifications, experience, and expected contribution to the unit.

4.) Each unit should establish guidelines to promote achievement of fixed-term faculty. The expectation is that, for appropriate appointments, this will include ways to promote faculty development, ways to reward and recognize achievement, and guidelines for promotion under appropriate circumstances.

5.) Whenever a faculty member is hired off the tenure track, whether FT-I or FT-II, University policies and guidelines are pertinent to the position should be communicated to the new faculty member. These policies and guidelines are HR-05, HR-36, HR-61, HR-21, HR-24, HR-40 and Administrative Guidelines for HR-23 (Section 5E). Policies relating to benefits are in Attachment 2.

6.) The Senate Committee on Intra-University Relations should continue to provide periodic informational reports to the Senate on the use and numbers of faculty on and off the tenure track at various locations. Future reports should include data from the College of Medicine and the College of Law which were omitted from the last report.

BACKGROUND

Nationwide incremental changes have been occurring in faculty hiring over the last twenty-five years. The trends have been to hire more full-time faculty off the tenure track and to replace full-time faculty with part-time positions. The United States Education Department published a report documenting the increased use of part-time faculty (Part-Timers Continue to Replace Full-Timers on College Faculties. Chronicle Higher Ed, A18:1/28/2000). A report of data compiled by the Coalition on the Academic Workforce confirms the significant use of nontenure-track faculty who receive lower pay and fewer benefits than their tenure track peers (Study Shows Colleges’ Heavy Reliance on Their Part-Time Instructors. Chronicle Higher Ed., A12:12/1/2000). Although some institutions have converted positions from part-time to full-time, the new positions were not on the tenure track (How a University Created 95 Faculty Slots and Scaled Back its Use of Part-Timers. Chronicle Higher Ed: A18,10/22/1999). Such positions have inherent problems, especially in the sciences (Soft Money’s Hard Realities. Science 289: 2024, 2000).

Discussions among the Faculty Affairs Committee members led to the development of a different questionnaire for each group - tenure track faculty, faculty administrators and faculty not on the tenure track (without regard to full-time or part-time status). This pilot study included ten locations – Abington, Altoona, Berks, Capital College, Carlisle, Erie, Great Valley, Hershey, Mont Alto, and University Park. For the survey of faculty not on the tenure track, 24 responses were received from University Park and 37 from other locations for a total of 61 responses. For the tenure track survey, 64 responses were received from University Park and 50 from other locations for a total of 114. For the faculty administrators, 15 responses were received from University Park and 23 from other locations for a total of 38 responses. The total number of responses was 213. The percent of returned questionnaires is unknown. Attachment 1 is a summary of compiled results.

RATIONALE

The impact of faculty not pursuing tenure on the professional development of tenure track faculty and on the academic climate is highly variable throughout the University. Some units have no non-tenure track positions while others have significant numbers. From this pilot study we conclude that hiring faculty off the tenure track often gives the unit needed flexibility to address short-term problems. This has the positive effect of allowing expansion and contraction of faculty based on enrollment and new course requirements. In addition, these individuals often relieve the teaching obligations of tenure track and research faculty. The positions have budgetary advantages because they reduce personnel and research costs. These positions can also bring professional relevance to the classroom for those who have significant careers outside the classroom. In many cases these faculty have contributed significantly but too often they are under-valued, under-committed to the University and have an overall negative effect.

However, use of FT-I and FT-II faculty often creates a two-tier faculty with two cultures that can adversely affect morale – especially the morale of some non tenure-track faculty. In some units the turnover and degree of commitment of faculty hired off the tenure track are perceived to have an adverse effect on continuity for students, courses and the curriculum so that academic quality might be compromised. The Faculty Affairs Committee believes that the recommendations we have put forward will foster a positive environment for non-tenure track faculty where they will be embraced as valued colleagues and their professional development will be encouraged.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS

Shelton S. Alexander

Seyed Saad Andaleeb

Kultegin Aydin

Ingrid Blood

Melvin Blumberg

Clay Calvert

Lynn A. Carpenter

Renee D. Diehl

James M. Donovan

Jacqueline R. Esposito

Dorothy H. Evenson

Veronique M. Foti

Margaret B. Goldman

Elizabeth Hanley

Ravinder Koul

Robert LaPorte

Sallie M. McCorkle

Louis Milakofsky, Chair

Victor Romero

William A. Rowe

Robert Secor

Jeffery M. Sharp

Stephen W. Stace

Kim Steiner

Valerie N. Stratton, V-Chair

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FACULTY DEVELOPMENT

Syed Saad Andaleeb

Ingrid Blood

Jacqueline P. Esposito

Veronique M. Foti

Margaret B. Goldman, Chair

Elizabeth Hanley

Valerie N. Stratton

ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS OF THE THREE SURVEYS

The following is a summary of the responses to the pilot study. The percent responses to questions is given to get a sense of the magnitude of positive answers and is not meant to imply that the survey can be subject to rigorous statistical analysis. That was not the intent of the Committee on Faculty Affairs.

SURVEY OF FACULTY HIRED OFF THE TENURE TRACK

In the responses to the pilot survey, the majority of non-tenure track faculty were not actively seeking another position (78%) and were supported by departmental funds (85%). Reasons for choosing such a position varied, but for 43% this was the only option available. Twenty-four percent at UP versus 6% at other locations wanted to focus on teaching while 25% overall took a position off the tenure track because it was compatible with other responsibilities. Outside UP, 20% took the position because they lacked a Ph.D. degree. Some (14%) felt there was no advantage in such a position. UP faculty felt the advantage was less pressure and fewer responsibilities (33%) or the ability to devote more time to teaching (18%). Non-UP faculty cited advantages as the lack of a need to publish (20%), a more flexible schedule (13%) and more time devoted to teaching and students (13%). UP faculty thought the major disadvantages were the perceived lower status (35%) and less competitive salary (15%). Faculty at other campuses were concerned about their lower salary (33%) and lower benefits (15%), their lack of job security (30%), their lower status and perceived lack of respect (27%), their lack of support funds and staff (21%) and the lack of opportunities for promotion and tenure (15%).

Faculty who are not on the tenure track are evaluated (88%) but sometimes only by students (19%). They also have the opportunity to participate in professional development seminars (89%), and have adequate academic support (90%) and office space (72%) compared to their colleagues. However, there are problems because only half felt they were adequately recognized and valued. Although the faculty who responded to the survey participate in curriculum development (73%), they do not advise student organizations (70%), and neither participate actively in faculty governance (74%) nor in departmental governance (55%). Forty-one per cent feel constrained in expressing their opinions in academic matters so that academic freedom may be undermined.

SURVEY OF TENURE TRACK FACULTY

The group felt policies toward them could be improved by better communication of University policies, improvement in pay and benefits with increased use of multi-year contracts, establishment of a reward and recognition system and establishment of uniformity and clarity in evaluation.

The survey of tenure track faculty showed that half felt they saw a shift to hiring more full-time faculty off the tenure track and half felt their courses and teaching had been affected. At UP the majority of respondents (73%) saw no shift to hiring more part-time faculty. At other locations half the respondents saw a shift and often this was to meet the needs of increased enrollment and sometimes as a response to new programs. Tenure track faculty (79%) felt the use of faculty hired off the tenure track solved some problems such as helping teaching, meeting short-term needs without having to make a commitment, saving money and aiding research. They enable flexibility and accommodation of special situations. Tenure track faculty (77%) felt the use of faculty hired off the tenure track creates problems as well. Non-tenure track faculty are often treated as second-class citizens, they are often undervalued and exploited and they can be less committed to the department, the University and to teaching. The overall consequences are negative.

Tenure track faculty felt that policies could be improved by developing official guidelines that would include standards for hiring and retention of faculty not on the tenure track. The responsibilities of each of these faculty members within the unit need to be defined clearly and the units need to develop a more inclusive approach to these faculty members. Various suggestions were made to address the perceived negative effect of these positions. They included developing more uniform salary and rewards as a disincentive for hiring off the tenure track, limiting the number of these positions or providing better opportunities for conversion to the tenure track or to multi-year contracts.

SURVEY OF FACULTY ADMINISTRATORS

Faculty administrators surveyed (73%) are using more full-time faculty not on the tenure track (FT-I) because of increases in enrollment, scarcity of Ph.D.’s in certain fields, research needs, clinical needs, and the need for special courses. They (49%) are using more part-time faculty (FT-II) as well. Part-time faculty are used because of course demands resulting from increased enrollment and because some hires only want to work part-time. The respondents (46%) felt that the use of faculty not on the tenure track sometimes affected the mission of the department/college and sometimes affected relations within the department and between departments (31%). Their use impacts the departmental budget (66%). Half the respondents felt the use of these faculty affected how courses were taught (47%), curriculum planning (47%), and faculty development (39%). For the group that was sampled, the use of FT-I and FT-II faculty appears to have had less of an impact at UP than at other locations in the following areas: faculty and peer evaluation (13% UP vs. 56% elsewhere); faculty advising and mentoring (15% UP vs. 61% elsewhere); faculty committee work (20% UP vs. 57% elsewhere); faculty retention (no effect UP vs. 30% elsewhere).

ATTACHMENT 2

REPORT ON BENEFITS AVAILABLE TO FACULTY H IRED OFF THE TENURE TRACK IN FULL-TIME (FIXED TERM I) AND PART-TIME (FIXED TERM II) APPOINTMENTS

The following report was approved by the Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits, Spring 2000.

All Penn State faculty are classified either as "regular" or "non‑regular" employees. A regular faculty employee is one appointed under the sub‑classification heading of "Academic" or "Academic Administrator" in a full-time position that exists for at least 6 months. The only exception is that persons on an academic appointment designated as "Visiting" are classified as non‑regular employees. A non‑regular faculty employee is anyone granted a Fixed Term II or Visiting academic appointment, OR who fills a position that will exist for less than 6 months, OR who is working on less than a full‑time work schedule, OR whose position title includes the words "part‑time". Full-time faculty members on the tenure track have a Standing appointment. Full-time faculty members on not on the tenure track have a Standing Appointment, a Fixed term I single-year appointment or have a Fixed term I- Multi-year appointment. Faculty members, who are not on the tenure track and are part-time, receive a Fixed Term II appointment.

By these definitions, a faculty member appointed as Standing, Fixed Term Multi‑Year or Fixed Term I is considered a regular employee and thus is covered by all policies applicable to the University's employee benefits plans, educational privileges for employees and eligible dependents, plus Workers' Compensation and Unemployment Compensation programs. With respect to benefits, two provisions are different for Fixed Term I appointments relative to Standing appointments. The first is that only Standing Appointment tenure track faculty may apply for sabbatical leave. The second concerns the option for having a 9‑month (36 week) salary paid in 12 installments instead of 9. Fixed Term I faculty classified as "exempt" with no summer duties cannot receive 9/12ths of their annual salary each month during the first 2 years of their employment and thus are paid only during the months worked. Any person appointed on a "non‑exempt" basis will only receive a paycheck while working, not in 12ths.

The benefits available to part-time faculty are considerably different from those of full-time faculty. Major differences that apply to Fixed Term II or Part‑Time faculty are itemized here.

1. University‑sponsored healthcare plans (PPO, POS plans, HMOs, etc.) are available to these faculty once they complete 24 months of University service and have taught at least 15 credits in each 12 month period. Once qualified, Fixed Term II faculty must continue to meet these criteria. Monthly costs will vary by healthcare plan and are equal to the full‑time employee cost plus one-half of the employer cost.

2. Fixed Term II or Part‑Time faculty are not eligible for participation in University‑sponsored dental or vision plans, the Long‑Term Disability insurance plan, the Voluntary Accidental Death and Dismemberment plan, and or the University‑sponsored Life Insurance plan, and/or the Flexible Benefits Reimbursement Accounts.

3. Benefits-eligible Fixed Term II or Part‑Time faculty may utilize the Employee Assistance Program, and may elect to have the cost of their medical coverage deducted on a pre-taxed basis.

4. Participation in a University retirement plan is mandatory once the employee has reached 750 hours worked in one calendar year; continuation in subsequent years is required but no minimum number of hours worked is specified to remain in the plan.

5. Fixed Term II and Part‑Time faculty are covered by Workers' Compensation and Unemployment Compensation Insurance to the extent allowed under State regulations. For details of these coverages, the employee should contact the Human Resources representative in their College.

6. All Fixed Term II and Part‑Time faculty may also elect to participate in a University-sponsored tax‑deferred annuity (TDA) plan. Deductions are based on a percentage of salary (up to legal limits) but may be taken only if sufficient salary remains to cover required deductions (e.g. taxes, fees). Previously TDA participation was limited to those part-time employees enrolled in a University retirement plan.

7. Educational privileges for self and eligible dependents are available for those appointed on a full time Fixed Term II or full time Visiting Faculty appointment for at least 1 semester or summer session if their appointment covers both the beginning and end of the semester or summer session.

8. Faculty are eligible for participation in the Federal Family and Medical Leave Act program if they have worked for the University for at least 12 months and at least 1,250 hours during the 12‑month period immediately prior to the leave.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY BENEFITS (1999-2000)

Keith Burkhart

James May

Timothy Ovaert

Laura Pauley, Vice-Chair

Allen Phillips, Chair

Lawrence Sinoway

Gerhard Strasser

Jose Ventura

Anita Vickers

Billie Willits

J. Randall Woolridge

COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS

Recommendations for Emeritus/Retired Faculty

(Advisory/Consultative)

[Implementation Date: Upon Approval by the President]

INTRODUCTION

In the 1999-2000 academic year, the Committee on Faculty Affairs began discussing issues related to emeritus faculty. Based on casual observations and recent articles dealing with nation-wide concerns, we were aware of some dissatisfactions with respect to the degree of involvement retirees have with the University. There is limited University-wide effort to maintain relationships with retired faculty or to utilize their valuable expertise. One notable exception is the Provost's Emeritus Faculty Teaching Scholars program. Under this program, funding is made available to the academic unit for use by the emeritus faculty member to support his/her teaching, research, and outreach activities. Recently, the University of Iowa conducted an extensive study to explore how the University might better serve their emeritus faculty and how the emeritus faculty might better serve the University. No such study has ever occurred at Penn State, and no surveys of retired faculty have been conducted.

Thus, the Committee on Faculty Affairs decided to conduct a survey of retired faculty to assess the degree of satisfaction among Penn State retirees. The survey included questions to determine retirees' use and awareness of available benefits, areas of satisfaction and dissatisfaction, and degree of involvement with the university since retirement (See Attachment A). The survey was sent to a random sample of 300 retirees, both emeritus and non-emeritus, from all locations. A total of 170 usable surveys were returned.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based in part on the results of the survey, the Committee on Faculty Affairs recommends the following:

1. Departments, colleges, and campuses should be encouraged to make more use of qualified emeritus and other retired faculty. They may substitute for faculty who are on leave or attending conferences, or teach introductory or specialty courses when needed. They may serve on thesis and dissertation committees when appropriate. Some incentives to support their teaching, research, or outreach-related activities should be offered when retired faculty members teach a regular course or take on substantial instructional responsibilities.

2. Departments and/or colleges should make retired faculty aware of opportunities to mentor students and faculty at all levels.

3. Retired faculty who are active in research, teaching, or University service should be provided office space on campus within their home college when feasible. Departmental/ college support, such as secretarial services, supplies, travel stipends, software, parking, etc., should be encouraged as appropriate to the retiree's contribution to the program. Whenever possible, lab space should be provided for retirees who maintain an active research program that contributes to the field and the department's mission.

4. Retired faculty should be encouraged by their departments, colleges, and campuses to remain involved in departmental and collegiate activities. This may be accomplished through newsletters, email announcements, invitations to department/campus events, use of retirees on committees and in other service capacities as needed, such as contacting potential donors in fund-raising efforts. Deans should be made aware of how department/division heads are engaging retired faculty.

5. The Office of Human Resources should designate an Employee Benefits officer to be responsible for retired faculty and staff issues. This person should ensure that faculty at all University locations have equal access to information and problem resolution concerning all retirement benefits.

6. The Joint Committee on Insurance and Benefits should continue to consider extending medical insurance for retirees to include some amount of vision and dental insurance, and should explore the availability of a deductible policy that could provide long-term care or coverage for catastrophic events at a reasonable cost.

7. 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.

8. The University should consider establishing or extending the equivalent of senior-citizen discounts for University-sponsored activities and events.

9. Periodic surveys of retired faculty should be conducted by the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs to monitor the success of any steps taken by the University and to identify other areas of satisfaction and dissatisfaction within other samples and in other time periods.

BACKGROUND

Retirement is different for academics than for many other professions. While in most careers retirement is seen as a time to leave that work behind and relax or go on to something else, the career of being a university faculty member is much more tied to a person's identity and intrinsic interests; it is more of an avocation than a vocation. Additionally, the ultimate goal and focus of academics - wisdom - is something that comes only with experience and age, just about when the average faculty member retires. Indeed, many faculty are reluctant to retire, and since the repeal of a mandatory retirement age, more faculty are staying on the job beyond the age of 65 or older.

Recent articles in The Chronicle of Higher Education have addressed this issue. Nation-wide, nearly one-third of full-time faculty are 55 or older due to a surge of hiring in the 60s and 70s. Within the next ten years, this large block of faculty will be reaching the traditional age of retirement. Two problems will develop for universities at that time. If many of those faculty retire, universities will be losing a valuable resource. Those faculty include some of the best teachers and mentors; they provide a connection between alumni and the institution; and they have the experience, wisdom and institutional memory needed by younger faculty to avoid reinventing the wheel. On the other hand, if those faculty don't retire, universities lose the opportunity to hire new blood, change program foci, diversify the faculty and hire specialists in modern areas. Many of the faculty who don't retire at 65 or 70 are at top research universities and are the most productive in research areas. To quote one article from the Chronicle (Magner, 2000), "Universities don't want these faculty to go away. They would just like them to stop getting paid."

Another reason faculty may not want to retire is the poor treatment they receive after retirement. As another article in the Chronicle (Parini, 2000) points out, there is no merit in emeritus in most colleges. Once retired, faculty are forgotten about and cut off from their life work.

Detailed results of our survey are attached. Attachment B presents a summary of the demographics of the respondents; Attachment C shows the extent of usage and awareness of the various benefits available for retirees; and Attachment D gives the percentages of respondents who supported the recommendations from the University of Iowa report. Overall, the results indicate that the observations made above are true for Penn State retirees. There are many dissatisfactions among Penn State retirees. One open-ended question asked respondents to identify specific satisfactions and dissatisfactions with respect to support from or involvement with the university since retirement. Far more dissatisfactions were reported than satisfactions, with higher rates of dissatisfactions at non-UP locations. The satisfactions identified included having office space, use of department facilities, health insurance, computer access account, teaching opportunities, athletic facilities, and being informed and involved with department activities. But it was a minority of the respondents who reported these benefits. Far more respondents reported dissatisfactions including lack of parking (primarily at UP), lack of vision and dental insurance, not being permitted to teach, and lack of involvement or contact with the department. Many comments dealt with feeling ignored and rejected. One respondent said his use of facilities to continue research was questioned by University attorneys. Another said the Engineering library asked that he not use the facility. Two references were made to other universities with which the respondents had better experiences in terms of being encouraged to stay involved and with respect to medical coverage. Several felt that retirees represent a vast pool of expertise not being used by the University.

The survey asked for suggestions for ways to improve the relationship between the University and retired faculty. Many of the suggestions, of course, related to the dissatisfactions described above. The suggestions included: make occasional parking cheaper and easier; add vision and dental insurance; allow half-time contracts for emeritus faculty as Iowa and Texas do; give discounts for events at Eisenhower, Schwab, etc.; send the Intercom to all retirees who want it. Many suggestions related to the issue of contact and involvement: have departments make more effort to include retirees; give occasional acknowledgments of services; show retirees more respect; give retirees faculty voting power. The most strongly supported recommendations from the University of Iowa study were to make more use of retirees for teaching, to provide office space and other support, to urge departments to make retirees more welcome to participate in departmental activities, to have a liaison in the Employee Benefits office to assist retirees with questions and problems, and to conduct periodic surveys of the retired faculty. One respondent simply said, "Do something!"

RATIONALE

The recommendations being made are direct responses to the comments and suggestions made by the respondents to our survey. More opportunities for greater involvement in teaching, research, and service, and a more welcoming atmosphere are clearly desired by the retirees. With respect to health benefits and retirement information, greater consistency across the system is needed, and a designated Employee Benefits officer could help ensure this occurs. Vision and dental insurance may currently be too expensive to provide, but this was a clearly expressed need by the retirees and should be explored on an on-going basis. Senate representation for emeritus faculty was suggested and would provide some voice in University affairs from an important and experienced group.

The primary goal of these recommendations is to help bring the University to a position where it is better serving the retirees and the retirees are better serving the University. Retirement need not be a cause of losing the expertise of senior faculty. The survey results strongly indicate the desire for such changes among the retirees, other universities have already implemented such measures, and these suggestions are simply decent things to do. Indeed, the establishment of the Emeritus Teaching Scholars program represents a recognition by the University of the valuable resource which retired faculty are. However, this is just a beginning. We believe that the University must continue to move in the direction of these recommendations for the ultimate benefit of all involved.

References

Magner, D.K. (March 17, 2000). The imminent surge in retirements. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp A18-20.

Parini, J. (May 12, 2000). Living up to the meaning of 'emeritus.' The Chronicle of Higher Education, p A68.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS

Shelton S. Alexander

Syed Saad Andaleeb

Kultegin Aydin

Ingrid Blood

Melvin Blumberg

Clay Calvert

Lynn A. Carpenter

Renee D. Diehl

James M. Donovan

Jackie R. Esposito

Dorothy H. Evensen

Veronique M. Foti

Margaret B. Goldman

Elizabeth Hanley

Ravinder Koul

Robert La Porte

Sallie M. McCorkle

Louis Milakofsky, Chair

Victor Romero

William A. Rowe

Robert Secor

Jeffery M. Sharp

Stephen W. Stace

Kim Steiner

Valerie N. Stratton, V-Chair

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FACULTY DEVELOPMENT

Syed Saad Andaleeb

Ingrid Blood

Jackie R. Esposito

Veronique M. Foti

Margaret B. Goldman, Chair

Elizabeth Hanley

Valerie N. Stratton

RETIRED FACULTY SURVEY

This survey is being conducted by the Faculty Affairs Committee at The Pennsylvania State University. The purpose of the survey is to assess how the university might support retired faculty and how retired faculty might serve the university. The survey is confidential. Please take a few minutes to respond to the following questions. Upon completion, please return the survey using the postage paid envelope.

Please indicate which of the following University benefits you use, you don't use but are aware of, or you don't use because you were not aware of them:

Benefits for all retired faculty:

USE AWARE OF, BUT NOT AWARE OF,

DON'T USE DON'T USE

o o o PSU ID card

o o o Library privileges

o o o Computer access account

o o o "True PSU" long-distance telephone service

o o o Use of athletic facilities

o o o Tuition reduction benefits

o o o Member of Faculty-Staff Club

o o o Member of Retired Faculty-Staff Club

Benefits for Emeritus faculty:

o o o Parking permit

o o o Listing in Faculty-Staff Directory

o o o Receive the Intercom (also available after 25 years service)

What other benefits/privileges do you receive through your college/division/department

(e.g., office/lab space, announcements, secretarial help, etc.)?

The following recommendations were made by a recent task force at the University of Iowa which explored issues related to Emeritus/Retired Faculty. Please indicate which of the following recommendations you feel Penn State should institute.

SHOULD SHOULD

DO NOT DO

o o 1. Form a corps of retired faculty to serve on committees, meet with

prospective students, assist with freshman orientation, etc.