 |
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE
UNIVERSITY
The University Faculty
Senate
AGENDA
Tuesday, March 26, 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 February 26, 2002, Meeting in The Senate Record 35:5
B.
COMMUNICATIONS
TO THE SENATE - Senate Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets) of March 12, 2002
Senate Calendar for 2002-03
C. REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of March 12, 2002
D. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR -
E. COMMENTS
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY -
F.
FORENSIC
BUSINESS –
G.
UNFINISHED
BUSINESS –
Committees
and Rules
Revision
of Bylaws, Article III, new Section 7 – Election to the
Senate
– Excessive Absences
H.
LEGISLATIVE
REPORTS –
Undergraduate Education
Revision of Senate Policy 65-00 Schreyer Honors College
Revision of Senate Policy 42-27: Class Attendance
I.
ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE
REPORTS -
Faculty Affairs
Incorporating the UniSCOPE Model into HR-23
J.
INFORMATIONAL
REPORTS –
Computing and Information Systems
Institutional Licensed Software Distribution Program (ILSD)
Committees and Rules Nominating Report - 2002-03
Faculty Rights and Responsibilities
Standing Joint Committee on Tenure
University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee
Election Commission
Roster of Senators by Voting Units for 2002-03
Faculty Benefits
Faculty Salaries Report, External Comparison
Faculty Rights and Responsibilities
Annual Report for 2000-01
Intercollegiate Athletics
Annual Report of Academic Eligibility and Athletic Scholarships 2000-01
Research
Report on University Research
Senate Council Nominating Committee Report - 2002-03
Senate Officers – Chair-Elect and Secretary of the Senate
Faculty Advisory Committee to the President
Student Life
Student Use of Web vs. Printed Material
Undergraduate Education
Grade Distribution Report
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,
April 23, 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: March 14, 2002
To: John S. Nichols, Chair, University Faculty Senate
From: Louis F. Geschwindner, Chair, Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs
The Senate Curriculum Report dated March 12,
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 April
11, 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). 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.
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
University Faculty Senate
Senate Calendar
2002-2003
REPORTS DUE SENATE COUNCIL SENATE
September 24, 2002 October 8, 2002 October 22, 2002
November 5, 2002 November 19, 2002 December 3, 2002
December 13, 2002 January 14, 2003 January 28, 2003
January 31, 2003 February 11, 2003 February 25, 2003
February 27, 2003 March 4, 2003 March 25, 2003
March 28, 2003 April 8, 2003 April 22, 2003
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES
Revision of
Bylaws, Article III, new Section 7
Election
to the Senate -- Excessive Absences
(Legislative)
[Implementation:
Upon Approval by the President]
INTRODUCTION
A voting unit may replace an elected Senator with three or more unexcused absences from full Senate meetings or assigned committee meetings per academic year. An excused absence is defined as one due to health related reasons or as a short-term conflicting University or professional commitment such as teaching, research, or public service responsibilities that prevent the elected Senator from attending Senate meetings. The Senate Office will provide each voting unit with an attendance record at the end of each semester.
RATIONALE
Voting units often express concern that some of their elected Senators are not fulfilling their Senate responsibility because of frequent absences from Senate meetings. Voting units elect Senators to ensure representation and input on all matters pertaining to the educational interests of the University. Elected Senators with unexcused absences are, therefore, unable to fully represent their voting units.
Current Senate Bylaws (Article III, Section 5) makes provisions for the elected Senator engaged in professional activities and, therefore, is unable to fulfill Senate responsibilities to resign from the Senate.
Section 5
An elected Senator who is engaged in any type
of professional activity
making it impossible to carry out Senate
responsibilities for a period
exceeding three (3) consecutive months,
excluding June, July and August,
may resign if he or she wishes, but otherwise
shall be replaced by an
alternate to fill the period of time that the
Senator will be absent from
the Senate.
Article III, Section 6 of the Bylaws describes the process for a voting unit to identify a replacement Senator either by naming an alternate or conducting a special election.
Section 6
In case an elected faculty Senator is unable to
complete the elected term,
the University Faculty of the Senator’s voting unit
shall identify a replace-
ment in the following manner: In addition to
identifying an elected Senator
for each vacant seat, regular Senate elections shall
identify at least the highest
ranking alternate, that is, the candidate receiving
the highest number of votes of
those not elected.
If more than one alternate is identified, the alternates’ names
should be submitted in order of rank, based on the
number of votes. The names
of the winner(s) and all of the alternate(s) shall
be reported directly to the Senate
Office.
First choice for replacement is to be the highest-ranking alternate, as
identified in the most recent regular Senate
election; if the highest ranking alternate
is not available, then the choice will move to all
remaining alternates, in order of their
rank by vote.
If no alternates are available from the most recent Senate election to
identify a new elected Senator, the voting unit
shall hold a special election to identify
a new elected Senator, who will complete the
unfinished term. This same procedure
shall be followed in the replacement of committee
members elected at-large by the
Senate.
The proposed legislation is designed to provide the voting unit with the authority to replace a unit Senator. Further, the voting unit is responsible for assuring that faculty who stand for election to the Senate are made aware of their responsibilities for participation in and attendance at Senate and Senate committee meetings.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee on Committees and Rules recommends the following changes to the Senate Bylaws:
Section 7
Senate voting units have the authority to replace a unit
Senator who has three or more unexcused absences in any given academic
year. A voting unit should adhere to
the procedures outlined in University
Faculty Senate Bylaws, Article III, Section 6 for identifying a
replacement Senator.
Section 7 8
All elections of the Senate shall be supervised by an Elections Commission consisting of the Secretary of the Senate and four (4) other elected faculty Senators selected by the Committee on Committees and Rules.
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
UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE MEETINGS 2000-2001
7 full Senate meetings
Total number of Senators = 260
Distribution:
217 Elected
22 Appointed/Ex Officio
21 Students
24 Senators had 7 absences
15 Senators had 6 absences
14 Senators had 5 absences
23 Senators had 4 absences
In the 2000-2001 Senate year, 76 Senators had four to seven absences.
************************************************************************
UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE MEETINGS 2001-2002
3 full Senate meetings
(attendance not taken 9-11-01)
Total number of Senators = 265
Distribution:
222 Elected
22 Appointed/Ex Officio
21 Students
37 Senators had 3 absences
27 Senators had 2 absences
At mid-year, 64 Senators had two or three absences.
NOTE: 22 of the 64 Senators with two or three absences in 2001-2002 are the same Senators with six or seven absences in the 2000-2001 academic year.
SENATE
COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
Revision
of Senate Policy 65-00 Schreyer Honors College
(Legislative)
[Implementation
Date: Fall semester, 2002]
Background:
The
University Scholars Program was founded by Faculty Senate legislation at Penn
State in 1980. Dr. Paul Axt acted as
the champion for the program. Its
intent was to create one unified honors program for the entire university and
to increase the quality and profile of Penn State students. More specifically, it was hoped that the USP
would attract stronger students to attend Penn State.
Building
on the nationally renowned USP, The Schreyer Honors College was founded in
September 1997. Small modifications to
the original Senate legislation were made in 1998 to reflect a name change from
the University Scholars Program to the Schreyer Honors College. However, a more comprehensive set of changes
are needed in the legislation to reflect current practice, clarify the
relationship the SHC has with other academic units, and to reflect Penn State’s
style manual for English usage.
We respectfully request that the Faculty Senate
consider the following changes as recommended by the Undergraduate Committee of
the Faculty Senate.
Rationale:
Changes in the following sections of 65-00 are
proposed: 1) Eligibility for Admission
and Retention, 2) Participation, 3) Honors Credit, 4) Recognition and 5) Review
and Advisory Committees. The rationale
for each follow below.
Eligibility
for Admission and Retention - Penn
State’s style manual recommends the use of “first year student” to replace
“freshmen” whenever possible. Adding
“by the dean” clarifies how admission occurs.
The Honors College is no longer identified by a “The” preceding the
college name. Rather the SHC uses a
lower case, “the.” Defining “regular
participation” more explicitly is a helpful clarification of existing practice.
Participation - Departments, academic colleges and schools, and DUS
currently make all advising assignments; they are not made by the Honors
College. Most academic units assign
incoming Scholars to faculty advisers when students know their intended major. Undeclared students are often assigned to
professional advisers.
In recent years, the comprehensive
examination has been used infrequently as an alternative to thesis completion
in cases of student health crises or other emergencies; it is not used by any
department as a usual alternative to a research or creative thesis. The research experience is considered
central to an honors educational experience.
Deleting the comprehensive examination from the policy allows it to
remain an exception to the usual policy but does not encourage new departmental
honors programs to consider it as a regular alternative to a thesis.
Honors Credit - These proposed changes update the legislation to
reflect current practice and to clarify which experiences are reflected with
honors designations on the transcript. For example, although the current policy
implies differently, 500-level courses are not marked with an H on the
student’s transcript. Similarly, Penn State has used the term “honors option”
rather than “honors supplement” for more than 10 years. “M” denotes honors
writing-intensive courses; “T” denotes honors first-year seminars; “U” denotes
honors courses that fulfill the multicultural or international competency
requirement.
Scholars are “forgiven” 3 honors credits
for each semester of study abroad and six honors credits for each year
abroad. The most recent change in this
practice – from five to six honors credits for a year abroad – was approved by
the SHC Faculty Advisory Committee in 1998. 400-level courses have been counted
toward the honors credit requirements of first- and second-year Scholars for
more than ten years, although this practice was not authorized in the original
legislation.
Recognition – No change
except to adjust “The” to “the.”
Review and Advisory Committee
- The proposed changes clarify that the
Senate will review the Schreyer Honors College in the same way as the Senate
reviews other colleges. This section
was unchanged when the College was created, except to substitute the new name;
the existing language reflects the College’s former status as a program.
Note: Since
1980, all but three departmental honors programs have either been eliminated or
are operated seamlessly with the Schreyer Honors College. With respect for these pre-existing honors
programs: Economics permits seniors to
enter its departmental honors program whereas the SHC does not admit students
with fewer than four semesters remaining.
Engineering science students may receive honors notations on their
diplomas if they complete a thesis, even if they are not Schreyer Scholars.
English also submits nominations to the Honors College for students with fewer
than four semesters remaining.
Recommendation:
Senate
Policy 65-00 Schreyer Honors College should be revised to read as follows:
65-00 Schreyer Honors College
Proposed
changes to the existing policy are in bold-face; proposed deletions are struck
through.
1.
Eligibility for Admission and Retention
2.
Participation
3.
Honors Courses Credit
4.
Recognition
5.
Review and Advisory Committees
1. Eligibility for Admission and Retention
Entering freshmen first year students with
excellent records in secondary school and evidence of aptitude for high
academic achievement and students with a record of outstanding academic achievement
at the end of their freshman first or sophomore year may be
admitted by the dean of to The the Schreyer Honors
College.
To remain in The the Schreyer Honors College, a
student must give evidence of regular participation (i.e. completion of
SHC-approved honors credit) and must maintain a distinguished grade-point
average.
2. Participation
A student in The the Schreyer Honors College shall
be assigned an honors adviser who is approved by the student's academic
college and, where possible, is a regular faculty member in
a department of the student's major interests. The honors adviser shall develop
with the student a program of study appropriate to the student. For students in The the
Schreyer Honors College, any requirement for graduation other than the total
number of credits and those that are external (non-University) in origin may be
waived by the faculty of the major.
However, it is the responsibility of the honors adviser to make certain
the intents of both General Education and major requirements are
satisfied. A course chosen for either
purpose while a student is in the program college will satisfy
the corresponding graduation requirement if a student leaves the program
college. Successful completion and defense of an honors thesis is
required. Up to 6 credits of honors course work may be devoted to thesis
preparation. At the option of the major department, the passing of a
comprehensive examination administered by the faculty of the department may be
required instead of or in addition to the thesis.
3. Honors Courses Credit
Honors credit can be earned in three ways: by taking an honors
course, completing an honors option, or through honors independent study. An
honors course designation is given to specially designated sections of a
regular course, a course specially designed for students in The Schreyer Honors
College, an honors supplement course (see [b] below), independent study for a
student in the college and 500 level courses taken by a student in the college.
Courses of these types shall be marked with an H, or other honors suffix
(e.g., M, T, or U) on the student's transcript. A course in which a
Schreyer Honors College student is enrolled becomes an honors-supplement
option course for that student if the student and the instructor make
special arrangements at the beginning of the semester for significant
alternative work.
Schreyer scholars may also fulfill their honors credit
requirements by taking 500-level courses and by studying abroad, although these
experiences are not marked with an h on the transcript. First- and second-year scholars may also
fulfill their honors credit requirements by taking 400-level courses.
4. Recognition
Participation in The the Schreyer Honors College
and graduation as a Schreyer Scholar shall be recognized on all official
records and at commencement and other appropriate occasions.
5. Review and Advisory Committees
The Senate Committees on Undergraduate Education and Curricular
Affairs shall provide regular review of The the Schreyer Honors
College insofar as the Senate reviews all other undergraduate programs. The Dean of the Schreyer Honors College
shall sit as an ex-officio member of the Senate Committee on Undergraduate
Education. The Dean of The the
Schreyer Honors College is advised by a faculty advisory committee, a
student council, and an external advisory board, in addition to senior
administration. shall appoint faculty and student advisory committees,
in consultation with appropriate department heads, campus executive
officers, college deans. , and the
director of the Division of Undergraduate Studies.
Note: This academic policy was changed to University Scholars
Program from Departmental Honors Programs by Senate action on April 1, 1980. It
should be further noted that the title, "University Scholars Program"
was changed to "Schreyer Honors College" by Senate Council action on
January 20, 1998. Departmental and college honors programs in effect at that
time in 1980 and continuing uninterrupted may continue in accordance
with the departmental regulations and procedures then in effect. For this
information, check with the departments that have departmental honors programs.
These departments in 2001 are accounting, art history, astronomy, computer
science and engineering, economics, engineering science, and
English. , history, mathematics, philosophy, physics and psychology.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
Cheryl Achterberg
Richard I. Ammon
Theresa A. Balog
Dawn G. Blasko
Thomas E. Boothby
Richard J. Bord
Stephen Brown
John J. Cahir
Paul F. Clark
Peter D. Georgopulos
Gary L. Hile
Robert S. Hill
Richard R.
Kennedy
James L.
McDonel
Laura L.
Pauley, Chair
Paul A.
Ricciardi
Robert D.
Ricketts, V-Chair
David W.
Russell
Dennis C.
Scanlon
Thomas A.
Seybert
Terry R.
Shirley, Jr.
Teiko
Tachibana
D. Joshua
Troxell
Eric R.
White
SENATE COMMITTEE ON
UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
Revision
Senate Policy 42-27: Class Attendance
(Legislative)
[Implementation Date: Fall 2002]
Background:
Certainly, students get sick, become injured, have family emergencies, need to attend job interviews, etc. It is also certain that excuses of questionable legitimacy are offered at times. To reduce negative interactions and interference with the quality of learning, it seems appropriate to ask students and faculty to consider strategies that would minimize the possibility of problems. Faculty could anticipate student absences and have a reasonable plan in place to deal with them, one that is not perceived as being punitive for the students. Since it is impractical and sometimes not possible for students to obtain official validation for the reason of their absence, relations would be greatly enhanced if faculty moved away from the expectation of official validation for absences. The educational process would be best served if faculty would simply trust that students have legitimate reasons for missing evaluative events. On the other hand, it is expected that students only ask for accommodation to make up an evaluative event if they had a legitimate reason for their brief absence. Abuses of this trust should be sanctioned. For absences of more than one week, validation for the reason of the absence may be required.
Individual students and student governing bodies are expected to be supportive of any policy that seeks to enhance the learning-teaching process. Student governing bodies need to take responsibility for educating students about the process of seeking and getting accommodation for absences.
Rationale:
Senate Policy 42-27 states “Instructors should provide, within reason, opportunity to make up work for students who miss class for regularly scheduled, University-approved curricular and extracurricular activities (such as Martin Luther King Day of Service, field trips, debate trips, choir trips, and athletic contests).” That same policy also states: “Instructors also should provide, within reason, opportunity to make up work for students who are obliged to miss classes for other legitimate reasons.” But no guidelines are given. The lack of guidelines for handling such absences often results in anger and frustration for both faculty and students and may also contribute to an atmosphere of mistrust. In particular, the process of determining the legitimacy of the reasons for absences is frequently cumbersome and leads to negative situations that inhibit the quality of learning and teaching for both students and faculty. Thus, this proposed policy is designed to reduce negative situations for both faculty and students.
Recommendation:
Senate Policy 42-27 of the Academic Policies and Procedures for Undergraduate Students should be modified as shown below:
42-27 Class Attendance
The faculty, staff, and other resources of the University are furnished for the education of students who attend the University. A class schedule is provided for students and faculty so that a reasonably orderly arrangement for instruction is facilitated. The fact that classes are scheduled is evidence that the faculty believes class instruction is important. Therefore, class attendance is important for the benefit of students.
Accordingly, it is the policy of the University that class attendance by students be encouraged and that all instructors