text:
Volume 31--------FEBRUARY 3, 1998--------Number 4
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 1997-98.
The publication is issued by the Senate Office, Birch Cottage, University Park, PA 16802 (Telephone 814-863-0221). The Record is distributed to all Libraries across the Penn State system. 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.
I. Final Agenda for February 3, 1998 Pages ii-iii
A. Summary of Agenda Actions Page iv
B. Minutes and Summaries of Remarks Pages 1-38
II. Enumeration of Documents
A. Documents Distributed Prior to February 3, 1998 Appendix I
B. Attached
Door Handout - Senate Committee on Outreach
Activities Appendix II
Corrected Copy - Senate Committee on
Outreach Activities Appendix III
Corrected Copy - Senate Council Appendix IV
Attendance Appendix V
III. Tentative Agenda for March 3, 1998 Appendix VI
Minutes of the December 2, 1997, Meeting in The Senate Record 31:3 Page 1
B. COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE - Senate Curriculum Report
(Blue Sheets) of January 23, 1998 Page 1
C. REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of January 20,1998 Page 1
D. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR - Pages 1-2
E. COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY - Pag 2-9
F. FORENSIC BUSINESS - Page 9
G. UNFINISHED LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS – Page 9
H. LEGISLATIVE REPORTS - Page 9
Faculty Affairs/Research
Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Computer Aided Instruction and
Learning Pages 9-13
Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid
Report on Current State of Student Financial Aid Pages 13-24
Curricular Affairs
Additions to the Guide to Curricular Procedures Pages 24-27
Report on the Serials Dilemma: An Update Pages 27-32
Outreach Activities
Structure of the Office of Outreach and Cooperative Extension Pages 32-37
Senate Council
Census Report for 1998-99 Pages 37-38
K. NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS - Page 38
UNIVERSITY - Page 38
M. ADJOURNMENT - Page 38
The Senate passed one Advisory/Consultative Report:
Faculty Affairs/Research – "Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Computer Aided Instruction and Learning." This report recommended that the Senate accept and support the three major conclusions of the Ad hoc Committee on Computer Aided Instruction and Learning. These conclusions addressed computer-aided instructional materials, ownership of those materials and commercial exploitation. (See Record, page(s) 9-13 and Agenda Appendix "B.")
The Senate received nine Informational Reports:
Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid – "Report on Current State of Student Financial Aid." This report provided information describing the growing needs for increased student aid funding and an overview of issues related to students in trying to finance their education. (See Record, page(s) 13-24 and Agenda Appendix "C.")
Curricular Affairs - "Additions to the Guide to Curricular Procedures." This report informed the University community about the changes in the fundamental tenets that were needed to curricular procedures as a result of the restructuring of the University. (See Record, page(s) 24-27 and Agenda Appendix "D.")
Libraries - "Report on the Serials Dilemma: An Update." This report addressed the spiraling cost of library materials and their impact during the last five years. (See Record, page(s) 27-32 and Agenda Appendix "E.")
Outreach Activities – "Structure of the Office of Outreach and Cooperative Extension." This report consisted of two parts. First, the activities of the Office of Outreach and Cooperative Extension; and second, a statement of the work of the Outreach Activities with this Office. (See Record, page(s) 32-37, Agenda Appendix "F," Door Handout Record Appendix II, and Corrected Copy Record Appendix III.)
Senate Council – "Census Report for 1998-99." This is a report on the census that establishes the representation by voting units of the Senate. (See Record, page(s) 37-38, Agenda Appendix "G," and Corrected Copy Record Appendix IV).
The University Faculty Senate met on Tuesday, February 3, 1998, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 112 Kern Building with Louis Geschwindner, Chair, presiding. One-hundred-fifty-seven Senators signed the roster.
Chair Geschwindner: It is time to begin.
Moving to the minutes of the preceding meeting. You have received The Senate Record, providing a full transcription of the proceedings of the December 2, 1997 meeting. It was also sent to all University Libraries and is posted on the Faculty Senate Web page. Are there any corrections or additions to these documents? All those in favor of accepting the minutes, please signify by saying, "aye."
Senators: Aye.
Chair Geschwindner: Opposed? The minutes are accepted. Thank you.
You have received the Senate Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets) for January 23, 1998 in the mail.
Also, you should have received the report of the Senate Council, the meeting of January 20. This is an attachment in The Senate Agenda for today's meeting.
I refer you to my remarks to Senate Council that are contained in the minutes attached to today's Agenda, and I will avoid repetition of these items.
The Senate Officers are now holding their spring visits by visiting units at University Park. On January 27 we visited the College of Health and Human Development. We will visit the College of Communications on February 12, the University Libraries on February 19 and the College of the Liberal Arts on February 24. These are the visits that will take place prior to our next Senate meeting. These visits are also located on the web page. I encourage each of you to check to see when and if your unit is being visited and do your part to get good attendance on the part of the students and the faculty.
As noted in the Senate Council minutes of January 20, the Faculty Advisory Committee to the President last met on November 11 and those agenda items were announced to Senate Council at their meeting on November 11. There had been a meeting scheduled for January 20; however, because of scheduling problems, it was decided to cancel that meeting. The next meeting is scheduled for February 18.
I also wish to point out from the minutes of Senate Council the editorial changes in Policy 65-00 that were approved at that time. These are editorial changes, changing the name of the University Scholars Program to The Schreyer Honors College.
I received two memos from President Spanier regarding legislative reports passed at the October 21 and December 2 Senate meetings. The first is the report from Undergraduate Education titled "Revision of 37-00: Entrance to a College or Major." This item was approved and is referred to the Vice Provost and Dean for Undergraduate Education for implementation. The second report from the Senate Committee on Committees and Rules entitled "Revision of Standing Rules, Article II: Senate Committee Structure" was approved and referred to the Executive Secretary for implementation.
The implementation Committee of General Education has now been established and the charge meeting will be held on Friday, February 13, 1998. John Bagby has agreed to chair this committee. The other members are: Frank Ahern, Ingrid Blood, Peter Deines, Evelynn Ellis, Don Fahnline, Gary Fosmire, Scott Kretchmar, Margaret Lyday, Jack Matson, John Moore, Dennis Scanlon, Susan Shuman, Jim Smith and Ken Thigpen.
I received an e-mail from Terry Engelder, chair of the Special Committee on Faculty Teaching Development and Evaluation. We are to expect a report from that committee at our March 31 Senate meeting.
Reporting on committees on which I represent the Senate, the search committee for Dean of the Schreyer Honors College has completed its work and the candidates have all completed their visits. An announcement should be made soon. The Martin Luther King celebration was held last month.
I also represented the Senate at a half-day information session for the Board of Trustees on the subject of academic personnel: Recruitment, Development, Assessment and Accountability.
I would also like to remind you that nominations are being invited for the Penn State Award for Faculty Outreach. For more information, see the January 15 Intercom, page 16 or contact committee chair Robert Nicely. Nominations for this award are due on February 6, 1998.
Graham B. Spanier, President: Thank you very much, and good afternoon, everyone. I'd like to use my time this afternoon somewhat differently and talk to you about a very important set of issues that I think are facing Higher Education today, and they center around the subject of Intellectual Property. Before I do that, however, I want to pass along one item of news. About two hours ago the Governor presented his budget proposal for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In that proposal he announced including a 3.25 percent increase for public higher education in Pennsylvania, pretty much across the board. That includes 3.25 percent recommendation on Penn State's base budget. I have a statement that I've just released which you can all call up, I'm sure, on our home page and that will give you my basic reaction. I won't repeat it all for you here, but I can point out that since Governor Ridge has been in office, that is his most generous recommendation yet for higher education. I think in the previous three years he's been at...his recommendations were zero, zero and two percent. So the 3.25 percent increase is some level of acknowledgement I think about the current economy of the state of Pennsylvania, and I take it as a positive sign in his confidence of higher education. Nevertheless, it trails considerably the request that we made and we will be making very forceful presentations, as we have the opportunity in the next several weeks to members of the legislature and in our appropriations hearing, advancing Penn State's needs and interests and how we think we can contribute to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Anyway, that statement is available. We are in the process of sending it out to members of the news media, and that will be pretty much all we have an opportunity to say on that right now.
As I said, I want to talk about Intellectual Property issues. I think, probably all of us in here may have underestimated how important this is to the future of our University and others in the years ahead. It's an issue I've had an opportunity to delve into considerably in several roles that I play at the national level as Chairman of the Commission on Information Technology of the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, and under the purview of that committee are a range of issues that include Intellectual Property, as well as networking, telecommunications, computing, to an extent distance education, and some other things. All of those issues begin to overlap. I'm also on the Board of Directors of the University Consortium for Advanced Internet Development--that is the non-profit consortium of universities that oversees Internet II--and one of the reasons these Intellectual Property issues are so important right now is because of the digital era that we're in. A lot of the old rules that we've had with copyright and reprinting and libraries and so on now take on expanded meaning and interest with regard to digital technologies. Then, overall within the higher education community, I chair the Presidential Policy Advisory Board on Information Technology, which is the group that coordinates all of the presidentially based higher education associations interested in this area and involves representatives from the Association for Research Libraries, Distance and Continuing Education Association, EDUCOM which is the Computing and Information Technology group, and I do serve on the AAU Committee on Intellectual Property and Digital Environments. Now in all of these groups we are trying to figure out what to do about this dilemma that we're in. Put in very plain language the dilemma is this, we in higher education have somehow gotten ourselves into a very, very strange position. You'd have to think we were crazy in some ways what we've done to ourselves. We are one of, if not the major producer of Intellectual Property collectively in the United States. We the faculty in higher education are the principle creators of Intellectual Property in this country. Intellectual Property is extremely valuable, no matter whether you're in the Humanities or Fine Arts or in the Biological Sciences or the Physical Sciences or Engineering or Medicine or whatever it might be. And what do we do as soon as we create this Intellectual Property? We give it away. We assign the rights to Peer Review Journals or to Publishers. If it's book material we may give away the rights in exchange for a modest royalty, but mostly it's to Peer Review Journals, which historically have been very much organized by our professional associations but increasingly--and I mean every day now--are being bought up by commercial enterprises, even though they may be nominally under the sponsorship of a professional society. Some of us are in fields where we actually send them a processing fee. We not only are prepared to give it away, but we send them a check along with it and say, "Will you please accept my money while I'm giving this away to you?" Then in some of our fields we pay page charges. After they say, "Yes, we'd be happy to publish it," they say, "By the way, that will cost you a few hundred dollars, send us the money for page charges," and we hope we have a research grant we can charge it to. But many departments at our university are actually sending university money along to do some of these things. Some of us then later edit books where we have to buy back the rights to reprint our own work in our own books. Some of us want reprints of our articles and we send them, you know, like a hundred dollars just to get 50 reprints of an article that we published, and then the worst thing of all, and this is what's killing us, is that our libraries then have to buy back this stuff at rates that you wouldn't believe, most of you. I'm going to show you a couple of examples and some of you, depending on your field, will be shocked to know how much of our library budget is going for a handful of titles that are very important, maybe not to us here, because we sort of know what's out there and have access to it, but certainly for our students and for our graduate students who really have to get a hold of this material and to be able to read it and deal with it. Our library--even though Penn State has treated its libraries very well, and even in bad times in the last decade or so we've always tried to give the library some extra money to try to keep up--but it's not keeping up. And we're not alone here. This is a problem in American higher education, and I've gotten to the point where my feeling about all of this is I want to open up the window like in the one movie and say, "We're not going to take it any more." And that's basically the discussions I'm in on at the national level, is how we go about saying "We're not going to take it any more," because every year we're having to reallocate more money from our budgets just to try to keep up. And we're not keeping up, and what's happening, collectively, to this tens of millions of dollars is it's going into the hands of some very wealthy people. It turns out a very small number of them, most of them European publishers, the names are…they're names that some of you would be familiar with--Reed Elsevier, Pergamon, Springer Verlag. What else? Gordan and Breech. There are some American publishers in there as well. So let me just show you a couple of things if you're not familiar with this. This will give you…these are data from the Association of Research Libraries that we belong to, and I think you know Penn State has one of the top 20 libraries in the country with our expenditures and formerly, in volumes, and so on. You can get an idea from this what's going on here. You can see the unit price of serials has increased since 19…the lap over one decade increased 147 percent in expenditures…124 percent. This is collective data for ARL libraries, so we're trying to keep up, were putting a lot more money into it, but it's still not keeping up. Look at how the prices of monographs are going up dramatically, way exceeding inflation. Monograph expenditures, again we're trying to keep up, but we're not doing it. So what does it mean?
Our serials purchases have actually declined 7 percent, the monograph purchases declined 21 percent. This is the national phenomenon facing higher education right now. And pity the poor, the really poor universities who can't keep up. These are the ARL…these are the top universities in the country who are trying to…this is what's happening to them. I don't even know what's happening to the rest of the group. Well, here are some examples of what we're dealing with just in the last three years. Now this is undoubtedly very shocking to those of you in the Humanities and some other fields, where you thought a journal was expensive when it reached 50 bucks or, you know, now there might be a couple where you are weighing whether or not to cancel your subscription because it's a hundred dollars. You may not realize that in some of the fields that are very important to Penn State we are paying two-, five-, ten thousand dollars for one subscription to journals. This is a sampling of what we're dealing with. Now, one of the more interesting parts of this is how in a two-year period the costs have increased. This is where we're just being bilked at every turn. Because they can get it, they are charging us for it, and it is a very painful decision for the librarians to have to decide whether we're going to take the leading journal in a particular area and not carry it any more so that we can keep another 50 journals going for English or Sociology or some other area. That's the dilemma we face. Now another interesting aspect of this is that many of you who are in these fields where you read these journals, you don't actually read the journal, do you? Because the research came out a couple of years before it showed up in print, and you've long since gotten a copy of the paper or read it on the Internet. So it makes you wonder, why are we spending millions of dollars a year on this stuff when we're not really reading it? Well it's mostly because we want our work to appear in those journals, because what those journals are doing more than anything else is providing a credentialing function and an archival function. The interesting question for us in the digital age is, do we need these ten thousand dollar a year paper journals to provide a credentialing and archiving function? And that's what ARL and other groups are beginning to think about. Do we need to be sending millions of dollars of our budget to three or four companies in Europe to be doing this for us? And it gets to the core of some of the issues we care about, like peer review, and what our vitae is going to look like, and promotion and tenure, and all of that stuff, and that's why this is a very, very important faculty issue for the next decade that we have to begin thinking about. Now it's not something that Penn State can go off and just make decisions about on its own. That's why it's got to be done nationally and really--while some leadership can come from AAU, some leadership can come from the Presidents and some leadership can come from ARL and the Librarians and the University Press folks and others--I believe that in the end the leadership is really going to have to come from the professional associations--from the American Chemical Society, from the American Psychological Association, from the American Sociological Association, from the National Council on Family Relations, and whatever your principal disciplinary connection is, because they are often really the certifiers. They are often really the ones who are choosing the editors and running the peer review process. While the commercial enterprises that actually publish the journals are carrying away the money to the bank, ARL libraries' business--this is just with the one company, Elsevier--75 million dollars just from the ARL libraries is being sent to that one company. How many ARL institutions are there? A little over 100 universities are sending 75 million dollars just to that one company. And what's interesting is it's only 3.6 percent of the titles that we purchase but it's 21 percent of all of our collective library serial budgets. Now some of these numbers are actually higher for Penn State because we're in the upper tier of the ARL libraries. Now again, just to give you an idea of what this one company: this shows library related businesses that have been formed as a part of their merger just in the last four, five years or so, and this is out of date. This is just a few months ago, and since then they've bought up all kinds of--in fact what did we learn they just bought yesterday, some kind of engineering outfit?
What was it? Engineering Index. Any of you familiar with that? Just bought yesterday by this company, and what have they bought in the last month? Somebody just bought Chem Abstracts, right? No? What did we hear about Chem Abstracts yesterday? Oh, that we were paying 25 thousand dollars a year for our one subscription to that. 35 thousand, okay. Anyway, and again their global strategy is to really capture all kinds of information resources. So anyway, I won't belabor that point. Those are all the slides I want to show you, and I would have shown you more, but as it turns out later on the agenda today, our folks from the library have an informational report about some of these matters and they're really the experts on the issue, so there will be an informational report today. We do have a faculty committee working on this, and then I think there are, on a couple subsequent Senate meetings, going to be some additional discussions of these kinds of issues. But there are some cultural issues involved for us that I think we have to start thinking about, and at some point we may have to begin to act in some ways that we have not been accustomed to acting about all of this. You know, our collegial and intellectual approach to things has not been working very well with these companies who occasionally--mostly they boycott the discussion--but occasionally they come and send a representative to…I've been at meetings where they've sent somebody and they put up their charts, and they talk and so on and nothing really ever happens. So the price increase the next year was 16 percent instead of 17, but we are doing this to ourselves, I think, because there are ways around it. So the Association for Research Libraries has launched a project that we have decided to support called "SPARK," and the AAU's committee on Intellectual Property and Digital Environments is supporting similar initiatives with the goal being to start at the level of the professional associations. Go to some willing professional associations and to hold them harmless financially, basically to say, "If you are willing to change the system and publish the work electronically, you still have the peer review and the credentialing system, and you still have an archival system but you as a professional society take this on and do it then we'll provide, the higher education community will initially provide the financial support so that you don't lose any money." Some of them now, some professional associations--I shouldn't say some, I think it may be the majority of professional associations in this country--that we all belong to, their principle source of income is their journal. Even in cases where they don't publish it, because what these publishers do is they send them back some money, and they sort of give them just enough so it looks like a pretty good deal for the professional association, and for them to have to give up there relationship with a commercial publisher could be devastating to them. So we have to back-stop that and get enough of the really noteworthy professional associations willing to take some risks to back away from our dependence on those commercial enterprises. So that's some of what is evolving out there, and it will be interesting to see what happens. Okay, so I, you know, sound like I'm preaching now, but I think I'll stop there and see what questions you have. Yes…
Amy K. Glasmeier, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences: How quickly is this process changing and how rapidly do you imagine any efforts on the part of the organization to prescribe what you represent? How quickly can something be established?
President Spanier: Well I think it's going to be a slow, evolving process and I think we'll begin to see some progress in the first year or two. But I think it will likely be several years before we see any massive changes. It's not going to be easy because these companies have very much now themselves gotten into the digital arena. They're buying up digital resources, they're putting out digital versions of their journals, sometimes with funny rules like, you can't buy a digital version unless you also pay the full price--spelling full--(fool) just a little editorial comment there--the full price on the paper version, and they have built up huge war chests, huge war chests in the billions in some cases, of money to kind of win this war and deal with it. So I have no illusion this is going to be very easy.
Tramble T. Turner, Penn State Abington: Is the option of University Press's publishing the journal articles being discussed?
President Spanier: Yeah, well University Press, many university presses--maybe not many, a few university presses--some of the leading ones are now involved in publishing journals and publishing them electronically and that certainly is an option. The problem is there's such deep-seated traditions in many of our professions going back decades, that there's a certain pecking order of the quality of journals and, you know, you don't care if it's more important to you to send the article to that journal if you think it can get in. You're happy if the library has to pay 10 thousand dollars for it, if you can get it accepted there. I mean that's a much higher priority at an individual level, so that's why it's really entire professions that have to decide what to do. In our discussions we talked about all kinds of things like maybe a professional association sets up a credentialing process where an article is evaluated and there's a one-, two-, three- or four star rating. If you get a star it's publishable, so to speak, it's of sufficient quality that it can be published. But those that are truly of groundbreaking consequence to the profession get a higher rating, and then maybe it doesn't quite matter so much which place it shows up, its what it means to the profession. There are some fields, there are some disciplines for example in physics, where they've sort of beat this system already. I mean they're still paying big money for the big things but in physics when your article is peer reviewed and accepted for publication its out there in everybody's hands, you know, the next day. The notion of waiting a year and a half or something until it shows up in print would be considered outrageous. One commercial publisher said, "You know this can't be copied in electronic or any form until it comes up in print." The society of physicists in that particular area said "No, we don't buy it, we're going to do it our way and that's that." There are some professional groups that do rapidly distribute things. They have their listserves and they go out and nobody ever reads the journal. Again, it's sort of a historical, archival thing. So I think in all of our fields we're getting to that point where there's really no reason to wait for information. We want it right away, we want to build on it, and what shows up in print later on is really…and many journals because of the traditional economics of publishing have a fixed number of pages. That's kind of arbitrary when you think about it, because some journal letters will tell you, "that's about right for us," but others will say, "no, there's about twice the stuff that's good enough to be in my journal, but I only have so much room or so many pages." Well in an electronic, in a digital environment you could have that many, I mean it doesn't really matter. So there are a lot of different nuances to it. Yes…
John Swisher, College of Education: Has there been any thought given to Intellectual Property rights in environments like the World Campus in order to protect the institution and the faculty members?
President Spanier: That's another whole interesting aspect of Intellectual Property that we're going to have to deal with. It's very interesting when we, when you think about publishing a journal article we assume you're doing that. We sort of let you--it's the tradition of our education--we let you assign the rights to a journal. Now if you're publishing a textbook the tradition has always been that you sort of own that. If you can get rich on it, fine, no problem, it's up to you. If you don't make any money on it, too bad, your problem. Now, if you're applying for a patent, it's that kind of Intellectual Property oh no, no, no, you all signed your life away. The University owns that. Now we have some deal where if it's really a great thing you'll get something back, right? So when you think about it, we treat our existing Intellectual Property in three completely different ways. Well, now in a digital era we've got to, and we're working on this, we want every faculty member to be very clear what it means. If you're developing courseware, or if Jim Ryan hires somebody full time to work in his shop to develop courseware for the World Campus, well, which category does that fall into, right? And who's going to market it and who's going…how do we split any royalties that come back on it? We have to have a whole new set of definitions in that regard, and you'd better believe now with all that we know about the complexities of this, we're going to be very careful about that and make sure we do it right. And universities are now sharing their policies that are evolving in this particular arena, and so I think that will become very clear over time. What we're going to do…we're not going to make the mistake of giving this stuff away. Here's another thing that's happening right now, we do have to get our act cleaned up on this. Now most of you that are doing stuff electronically, you are doing it under auspices of some Penn State unit. It's clear, for example that Penn State holds the copyright. You know where it fits in and what the deal is. But there are also some of you and your colleagues who we think have probably cooked up deals with other universities or commercial enterprises, and you're employed by the university, let's say, but you're thinking, oh, it's like a textbook, I can do whatever I want with it and I can sell it to somebody else. Well we'd better make sure we get that straightened out too. We don't want law suits down the road of who owns what, nor do we want some commercial outfit thinking that they own half of Penn State and the Intellectual Property coming out of here. So, there is a big gray area right now that's got to be figured out, and I urge all faculty as they think through opportunities like this that pop up, just don't go out and sign some contract and cook up a deal. You'd better check in with your departmental chair and the Intellectual Properties Office and all…check in so it's reviewed.
Chair Geschwindner: President Spanier, if you will permit me. I'm likely to become known as the Chair of the Senate who wouldn't let the President of the University speak. But I wonder, since we have two agenda items on this area and we should have significant additional discussion today, because we have some timing problems for presenters, would it be okay if we asked you to let us get on with the next agenda item?
President Spanier: Well, let me just say I'm grateful for you relieving me of the microphone. I do have other commitments as well. Thank you for rescuing me.
Chair Geschwindner: We would be happy to have you stay and add to the discussion, because these topics are going to be discussed later on today.
President Spanier: Thank you for rescuing me.
Chair Geschwindner: As we begin our discussion of reports, I remind you to please stand and identify yourself and the unit you represent before addressing the Senate. We're going to have the screen down for awhile so the microphone is down here in the front. Make sure you stand up so you can be seen.
Chair Geschwindner: Our first report is an Advisory and Consultative Report from the Faculty Affairs Committee and the Research Committee, a Report on the Ad Hoc Committee on Computer Aided Instruction and Learning. Murry Nelson is here to introduce the report.
Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Computer Aided Instruction and Learning
Murry R. Nelson, Chair, Faculty Affairs Committee
Ernest W. Johnson, Chair, Research Committee
Murry R. Nelson, College of Education: Thank you Lou. This report has been a long time in being put together by the Senate Committees on Faculty Affairs and Research, but actually it's been done for the most part by two members of those committees, John Bagby and Derek Elsworth. When this particular report was foundering at times, they were able to resurrect it and restructure it and move it forward, and I want to make sure it's clear to the Senate that they are the folks who have really husbanded and shepherded--to mix my metaphors here--this report. So John Bagby will be making this presentation, and he will explain everything that you need to know. And this relates directly with what President Spanier was just talking about, which is why Lou mentioned that. So, John…
John W. Bagby, Smeal College of Business Administration: Thank you, Murry, and special thanks to President Spanier for that excellent job of lead-in for me. The instructional side of Intellectual Property poses many of the same Intellectual Property control and financial-sharing questions that we just heard about professional journals. I hope to raise some of the more specific Intellectual Property issues that will relate to problems of publication agreements and our own employment contracting at Penn State. I refer you to Appendix "B" please. On the first several pages you'll find the Advisory/Consultative Report that Derek Elsworth and I prepared. Boxed on the second page of Appendix "B" you'll find the Dutton Report recommendations. Following our report on about page 11 is the original Computer Aided Instruction and Learning at Penn State: Issues and Recommendations, the Final Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Computer Aided Instruction and Learning, also known as the Dutton Report. Following that report you will find the charge John Brighton gave to that group. What we have is a long-standing effort that has gone for a long time from members of the Faculty Affairs Committee and the Senate Committee on Research. That has resulted in this Advisory/Consultative Report. In July of 1996 the Dutton Report was referred to the Senate; at that time a rather extensive review was started by the Senate Committee on Research (SCOR) and by Faculty Affairs. This Dutton Report was referred to sub-committees who then took substantial effort to do benchmarking and make some research efforts on this campus as well as on other campuses at leading universities. As a result of that work effort, both Faculty Affairs and SCOR delegated to a joint conference committee to prepare the report in front of you. What I believe this Advisory/Consultative Report will do for you is summarize some of the major areas of concern in Computer Aided Instruction or CAI, the abbreviation that is used throughout. We'll talk about some of the incentives and the contracting difficulties of starting these new Computer Aided Instruction projects. Overall I hope you see that this is a tough area in which a balancing of a number of issues of ownership and financial benefits and control are seen. The Dutton Report has made three major recommendations, those recommendations again boxed on page number two Appendix "B". The first recommendation basically says that "appropriate incentives are needed for Computer Aided Instruction for both their preparation and their use," and that's going to include a wide variety of resources like, equipment and facilities, assistance from professionals and work load changes and, of course, ultimately some kind of recognition in the promotion and tenure model. The second major recommendation, again summarized for you here in the second bullet, is that some form of equitable co-ownership seems necessary between the university and the faculty providers if more than normal university resources are involved in the CAI effort. And finally the third recommendation from the Dutton Report is that Computer Aided Instruction is very likely to move toward some kind of commercial exploitation, and that if we do move in that direction an initial project plan is strongly suggested, that these projects will be different enough that a really ad hoc case-by-case analysis of them will be necessary, and, importantly, that a financial sharing arrangement be designed that after cost recovery will yield half to the faculty participants and half to the units involved. What we are asking you today from SCOR and Faculty Affairs is to join with us in making this statement, that the Faculty Affairs Committee and the Senate Committee on Research recommend that this Faculty Senate accept and support the three major conclusions of the Ad Hoc Committee on Computer Aided Instruction and Learning--the Dutton Report. Well, a little history and a little analysis, but the rest of my presentation really will center around a number of cautions that we discovered in this process. Some of those cautions: we really need to examine what Computer Aided Instruction is likely to look like. One highly probable version of Computer Aided Instruction is that these will be multi-media presentations where team efforts are higher, probably, and that quite often third parties outside of the university community will be involved. Those third parties may assist us in designing graphic interfaces and in pedagogical elements, but also they are very likely to involve traditional print publishers because they have a good sense of the distribution channel--at least today they do--for instructional materials in general. Let's not lose sight that CAI is a costly process: Computers and communications take an enormous amount of time to design, to test and to prove that they are educationally sound. That doesn't count all the distribution, which in the traditional print publishing has been a rather costly portion of the channel as well. What we found from examining a number of CAI projects around this campus and around the country is that these projects are not simple. If a traditional print publishing contract would be considered simple, these are highly complex problems. No standard form has yet emerged, and so we're really experimenting in a new realm. You might call it a new paradigm that is coming about for all of us, and we all may find a different place in this new paradigm than we may have had previously. Again, I'm here to give us a heads-up, because the university community, I believe, needs to understand that there are some very significant issues--certainly those introduced by President Spanier. But ownership of Intellectual Property rights is a key starting place, and we have to recognize that third parties, particularly if they are the traditional print style publishers, have a strong incentive to grab onto ownership, and of course they have a long standing tradition of getting assignment of copyright before a project even starts on a traditional print project. They're looking for that same kind of up front ownership in Computer Aided Instruction projects. Once we look at who owns copyright, then a number of important Intellectual Property issues are automatically triggered. Problems that many of us perhaps haven't realized--and one of the most important that is challenging for all of us as faculty--are questions about non-competition with efforts we've made previously, because it's very likely, and in the contracts we examined in the course of this project, we found a number of publishers who were imposing non-competition restrictions. Some of these are rather obvious as non-compete clauses but others are hidden. Hidden in the natural aspect of copyright ownership. For example, copyright owners are permitted to, and given the right to, have derivative works made from their original writings. If we as authors have transferred copyright ownership to a publisher, then the publisher owns the right to commission derivative works. Computer Aided Instruction attribution is also another major problem. I think the report goes in some depth, but on the surface it has been seen in a number of Computer Aided Instruction projects. That is CDs, CD-ROMs that actually operate, it's often times quite difficult to find the author of much of the domain--the expert domain--areas there. In fact, in many of these projects where leading universities are sought to be the brand image of this project, the attribution is most likely to be to the university, and depending on how the project is contracted the university may be the author from the beginning. Many people we talked to in the Computer Aided Instruction area are excited about this prospect because they know they can make real time revisions and in many disciplines real time revision is very important. So posting something to your web site as a new discovery is made allows you to update on a real time basis. But when we look at CD-ROMs and certainly back at the text mode of delivery, we can recognize that revisions can't be as quickly affected as they are online. We found in some of the CAI projects that the right to do revisions and the right for the university to keep that CAI project up-to-date and the moral rights inherent in the original authors works continue to be presented in the best light reflecting on them. There are many issues in this area and not all of them are resolved best for authors. I'd like to finish with some discussion of that non-competition problem. Non-competition clauses and the nature of derivative rights are very likely to lead to some questions of whether faculty can preserve their core competence, the main thing they do. Non-competition clauses and the nature of the derivative work right could possibly preempt that faculty from participation in a future project, a print project, an electronic project and thus their employment mobility because faculty will need permission to make future works in that same area. And thus we're really looking at questions about the scope--or what's known as the field of use--and that field of use had traditionally been in the print area. Many people here, I suspect, who have book contracts have simply granted print rights but today now electronic rights are a major focus for most publishers, and in fact for those publishers who want to have parallel distribution channels of print and electronic media. So we have to recognize that in forming these contracts there are many different fields of use, print, computer aided instruction, video, audio, all kind of electronic--both digital, analog--multi-media and others yet to be discovered. So I ask you to look at many more of the details in this report. There are a lot of other heads-ups that I'd like you to know about, and at this time I'd like to solicit your comments.
Chair Geschwindner: This is an Advisory/Consultative Report moved by two of our committees. We'll be voting on this report and will open the floor for discussion.
M. Susan Richman, Capital College, Penn State Harrisburg: Anyone who has done any kind of development accreditation materials in Computer Aided Instruction knows how time consuming it is and also knows that some parts of it are much more time consuming than other parts. What is less clear to me in my experience is which parts are much more valuable educationally than other parts. I wonder if we could be given some references to research studies that have been done on the effectiveness of these materials.
John W. Bagby: I'm not the master of that research realm. I'm told, however, that research on it is not fully developed yet and there are people here who are--particularly those promoting the World Campus--who are probably better at answering that question.
Chair Geschwindner: Other comments or questions?
Amy K. Glasmeier: To what extent did the committee examine analogies which might provide some insights as to how you contend with these issues of ownership? I mean, obviously this is a new domain, but I can't imagine with history of knowledge that we haven't run into these dilemmas, and we constructed mechanisms for clarifying ownership. Did the committee look at that?
John W. Bagby: The committee did spend some time on that. From my own personal experience I'd like to share with you that probably the best model that's an analogy to CAI would be the movie industry. Because the movie industry is looking at a number of elements--video and audio and big names and looking at different ways to parcel out this intellectual property in a geographic sense, in a time sense, and also in a format. Whether it's on the screen or on records or on video. So, yes, there's a tremendous analogy that can be drawn to the movie industry.
Chair Geschwindner: Other comments or questions? You ready for a vote? All those in favor of approving the recommendation of this joint committee which is listed on page one of Appendix "B" of the Faculty Affairs Committee and the Senate Committee on Research, recommend the Faculty Senate accept and support the three major conclusions of the Ad Hoc Committee on Computer Aided Instruction and Learning signify by saying Aye.
Senators: Aye
Chair Geschwindner: All opposed same sign. Thank you very much.
John W. Bagby: Thank you.
Chair Geschwindner: Thank you John. That concludes our consideration of Advisory/Consultative Reports. We now move to Informational Reports. The first report comes from the Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid. David Roth is here to introduce the report.
Report on Current State of Student Financial Aid
Frank J. Kristine, Chair
David E. Roth, Penn State Erie, The Behrend College: Frank Kristine our ARSSA Committee Chair asked me to introduce the report to you that is found in Appendix "C" of the agenda packet there, and to introduce the topic and to introduce our presenter Anna Griswold. In January of 1995, the ARSSA committee presented to you a comprehensive report that dealt with the current status of financial aid at Penn State University, some trends that the committee recognized, and some suggestions concerning reactions to these trends. Now almost exactly three years later the committee has put together this new report concerning current issues related to student financial aid and how the students and their parents are trying to finance their Penn State education. Our purpose in this report is really two-fold: 1) the Senators should be keenly aware of the trends that impact our students and their parents in financing their education here. What are some of the present day loan debts facing our students? How are families and students actually paying for a Penn State University education? How does this compare to other public or private schools? What do we mean by creative financing, and what ramifications could this have in our classrooms? 2) Other than the obvious impact on students and their parents, does our financial aid program effect us in other ways? In Appendix "C" you'll see there where it describes on page 2 just how our financial aid program impacts not only our students and parents, but issues relating to you and me and the university. Issues like enrollment numbers, retention, academic standards, diversity in the classroom, overall success in both current students and recent graduates at PSU. We actually coined the four "A's" that you'll find there that will help us remember the not-so-obvious influences of financial aid--admissions, access to higher education, academics and achievement. In putting together this report, the committee was surprised at a couple things as they were discussing it. One is that the healthy financial aid program even impacts our classrooms. We as faculty are concerned with those students who by their part-time employment have little time to study, find out their grades begin to suffer and their progress toward graduation is delayed by financial issues. We also enjoy the diversity in the classrooms by seeing students with all varieties of economic backgrounds, not just the affluent. We like to see steady class sizes keep our university on a steady path of growth and strength. Second, surprising to the committee, was that a healthy financial aid program impacts the university as a whole, not just the students. Steady enrollments mean better planning, not only for facilities but for faculty and for class scheduling and more. Our purpose as a land grant university reminds us of our commitment to help those people of all diverse economic abilities, to improve their quality of life through higher education. The university and the public we serve both have much to gain from the benefit of a Penn State education and degree. The ARSSA committee expects this report will interest each of you differently, as it did each of the committee members, and may actually leave you with more questions than answers and identify more problems than solutions, but that's okay. Nevertheless, it is a snapshot of our sometimes very complex financial aid program that's heavily ridden with data and certainly dynamically changing. So as Anna approaches the front here, I'd like to introduce her. She is Anna Griswold, Assistant Vice Provost in charge of the Office of Student Aid in the Division of Enrollment Management and Administration. I've worked with Anna on the 1995 report as well as this one, and I'm impressed with how fortunate Penn State is to have such a capable person. She leads her staff of 60 people and she says that each one is dedicated to make financial aid understandable and reachable to as many qualified students as possible. She brings with her 28 years of experience at four other institutions of higher education before coming to Penn State seven years ago. Yes, and most important to me is that--you'll recognize this probably in her presentation--that she has a real dedication and passion in what she's doing in helping the students. The students at Penn State are truly very fortunate to have her head of this office. Anna Griswold.
Anna Griswold, Assistant Vice Provost for Financial Aid, Office of Student Aid: Good afternoon. In the 1995 report which David just mentioned, in which we talked about the status of student aid, the Faculty Senate voted for several recommendations calling for increased funding for scholarships and for grants to students with financial need. The upcoming Penn State campaign articulates that need, and a significant portion of the goal of the campaign will seek endowments to substantially increase scholarships for Penn State students. The support of the Faculty, your understanding of the role of Student Aid, was essential to the establishment of this goal in the campaign. Faculty support will continue to be essential to achieving this goal. So in this report today we hope to provide you with current information about the status of undergraduate student aid at Penn State. From the information that you have received in your packets, there are five important points which I think emerged from the report. One, as the cost of a quality higher education increases so do the number of students who seek assistance in paying for those increased costs. Second, you will see that there is a shift away from federal funding that shifts funds to students, away from the grant programs, and puts more of the burden on students in favor of funding their education with student loans. You will see that the value of the major federal grant program is declining in terms of its purchasing power as costs of education increase. Student loan debt for our graduating class each year is increasing and the information will also show that there is a need for increase in scholarships to our students. Okay, we have the first chart up here, and I'm just going to give you a couple of highlights for each of these charts. Move through them quickly and then I'll entertain any questions that you may have. The percentage of undergraduates requiring assistance has increased to well over half of Penn State's undergraduates. In fact, it was five years ago over half at 53 percent, now 61 percent, over 44,000 undergraduate students receiving some type of financial aid. In the second chart we see the primary sources of aid and the primary supplier of funds for our students is the federal government. So the student aid program at Penn State is heavily federally regulated. Now, comprising 72 percent of all undergraduate aid--of course other sources do come from state government--state grant programs, both in Pennsylvania and some other states where our non-Pennsylvania students bring grants from their home states with them. And Penn State is also a supplier of funds, student aid funds to our students representing 13 percent of the total student aid pie in 1996-97. We'll talk more about that percentage in just a moment. Student aid is available in the forms of loans, grants, work-study and scholarships, and this chart certainly reflects the shift in the last five years toward student loans. In '92-'93 the percentage of funds going to students in the form of loans just about equaled the combination of grants and scholarships percentage going to our students. But look at us in 1996-97. Again these are federal trends in providing educational funding at the post-secondary level. We see 60 percent of our funds coming to our students in the form of loans, 39 percent in the form of grants and scholarships. In addition to this changing balance, there has been a growing decline in the value of the federal PELL grant. The federal PELL grant serves those students who are least able to pay for the cost of a college education, so it's directed at what we would call our financially neediest students. At Penn State the average PELL grant in 1988-89 was sufficient to pay for 54 percent of the cost of undergraduate in-state tuition for a student receiving a PELL grant. In 1996-97 the average grant is covering only 27 percent of the in-state tuition. As I mentioned, 13 percent of all undergraduate student aid comes from University funding and endowments, representing 35 million dollars. These funds are distributed to support a variety of enrollment goals. There are grants for students with high financial need. There are opportunity grants to under-represented students, and there are scholarships available to our brightest students. But this compilation of funds that are derived through Penn State funding sources or endowments are going to students in many different forms, and that's what this chart is attempting to show you. Including things like students who help take care of our residence halls--Residence Hall Assistants--and they receive tuition assistance as well as room and board. But that is a form of assistance for these students in exchange for the services that they give. This chart is looking at the portion of that total university--13 percent of--funding of all the student aid funding. It's taking the portion of those funds which really represent what we think of most as scholarships, those funds which have a component that call for students to demonstrate academic achievement at some level. Many of the scholarships also are directed toward students who have evidence of financial need, but many scholarships primarily the focus is to attract and retain our best students. When you pull that piece of the funding, the scholarship program, out of the Penn State funds, we find 12.7 million dollars going to students in the form of scholarships as a piece of the full financial aid program that I think I showed you in the early chart, 279 million dollars. This represents 4 percent of the total pie going to students in the form of academic scholarships. This chart also shows who manages the various scholarship funds. Our colleges distribute some 3 million dollars selecting and managing the funds at the college level. Our campuses have scholarships that are managed at the different campuses and students are selected to receive those. You can see here that over half of the scholarships are managed through the Office of Student Aid. But we'll take a closer look at those funds and we can see that the specific programs of the funds that are managed out of the Office of Student Aid are funds that are targeted to meet important enrollment goals of the university. Goals of diversity, goals of academic excellence, with awards to students who are selected through The Schreyer Honors College, as well as students with need. But the smaller portion of this pool of money is available for us to make awards to students based primarily on need without the student having to be a declared major in any particular college. These would be donor scholarships in which the primary emphasis is, "I want this money to go to a student with need but I want it to go to a good student." Well, we've got plenty of those. We've got plenty of very good students with financial need, and the flexibility of funds for us to award to the neediest student is represented also in the programs that are administered through our office. The current level of scholarships at Penn State are reaching 20 percent of undergraduate students who have grade point averages above 3.0. I can tell you that scholarship funds at most of our peer institutions exceed our scholarship funds in relation to undergraduate enrollments at our peer institutions. So the amount of scholarships that we have in relation to undergraduate enrollments are quite low compared to many of our peer institutions, institutions within the Big Ten. An important challenge for Penn State's student aid program is to make a Penn State education affordable. A central cost which all students must pay each year goes beyond tuition and fees but also includes room and board and books and supplies. For the current year those costs are near 11 thousand dollars for in-state students and over 17 thousand dollars for out-of-state students. It's understandable, then, that almost half of the students applying for and receiving assistance come from families with household incomes that are in the lower income ranges. In this case 50 percent are coming--almost 50 percent are coming--from family household incomes below 50 thousand dollars annual income. An additional 30 percent are coming from households with income between 50,000 and 75,000, a range considered by many to also be within the middle income range. So we have quite a demand from families with incomes from near zero to as far as 75,000 dollars annual income seeking financial assistance to pay for a Penn State education. We know that in general student aid impacts our ability to recruit and enroll new students each year, and this table is intended to simply show the relationship between new Penn State students who applied for financial aid, having been offered admission in '96-'97, and those who actually came here. There are many factors that influence the college selection decision, so we aren't drawing any conclusions here, but we do recognize important questions raised by this data and I think this deserves further study. At Penn State, exactly what is the relationship between financial aid and the recruitment and attraction of students to our University, and how does that play out across different family income levels? Similarly student aid serves as an important retention factor, and this chart looks at students who were enrolled at Penn State in '95-'96, eligible to return in '96-'97, applied for student aid for the '96-'97 year, and the percentage of those who in-fact returned and enrolled. Again, drawing no conclusions, it would be an important question to look at to what degree we are retaining students? Are the financial aid programs doing an adequate job? These percentages as percentages don't look bad, but I think they call for an understanding of what is going on with respect to student decision-making as it might relate to their student aid. For a student from the lowest household income level, on average student aid can provide about 60 percent of an in-state student's essential costs, which we mentioned were close to 11,000 dollars in 1997-98, in the current year. So you can image how the cost would be out of reach for an out-of-state student from this income level with their costs being over 17,000 dollars. So the challenge, especially in the recruitment of out-of-state students, as financial aid pertains to those students, is a great one. This is simply a picture of a student from a household income a little bit higher. This is a 35,000 dollar annual family income, and while parents in this scenario would be able to contribute a little bit more--under the federal need analysis process would be considered to be in a position to contribute somewhat more--to the cost of education, this student would typically face as a part of their student aid package a higher percentage of their aid coming to them in the form of loans, and still there would be a shortfall in meeting the essential costs, as there was for the student in the lowest income level. I know that what you hear in your contact with students, and certainly what I hear in mine, are that there are many, many students who are working more than one job, more than one part-time job, trying to find the funds to pay for their educational expenses, and I think it's important for us to ask--and I believe Dave touched on this--how does this impact the academic progress of our students? Many students are taking longer to graduate, as they take reduced course loads in order to make more time for work. What are other ways that families are coping to make up the shortfall, the difference between the cost of a Penn State education and the limits of what they might be able to receive through financial aid? Well, an increasing number of families are turning to a federal loan program called the "Parent Loan for Undergraduate Students," the PLUS program. If you look at this, a near 300 percent increase in just five years in the amount of borrowing of our parents between '92-'93 and '96-'97. A 300 percent increase in the amount of borrowing activity through this program. So if we look at several of the major programs and funding sources over a five year period, a time in which tuition and fees increased 24 percent at Penn State, the major grant program, the major federal and state grant programs combined--those targeted to the neediest students increased 17 percent, hardly keeping pace with the tuition increase for that same period. Penn State's own grant and scholarship funding increased by 40 percent, and that is good progress, and progress that I certainly applaud the university for. But the university has also during this period looked very closely at important enrollment goals. Goals for attracting diverse population of very good students into our classrooms. So much of the increased funding that we have seen is, in fact, targeted to students to meet important enrollment goals. That is good, but does it give us the flexibility that we need in order to help fill that gap between what student aid can cover through primarily federal sources of funding and the actual cost of attendance? In the student loan programs, we see an increase of 85 percent during this five-year period in total student borrowing at Penn State. That five-year trend of increased borrowing is reflected here in the loan debt of our students at the point of graduation. We have been tracking the average loan debt for students graduating with a baccalaureate degree for the past three years. The average debt burden for students has increased for each of those three years. In 1997, 63 percent of graduating students who walked down the aisle at May and mid-year graduation had a loan debt walking out the door with them averaging 16,500 dollars. We're going to continue to monitor these trends. Certainly increased student loan debt as the means of financing higher education is not just a concern at Penn State, it is a concern at institutions across the country. This chart also shows how we compare to four-year public colleges and universities where our students are taking higher debt levels than is the national average, approaching perhaps a little bit closer those of students who borrow at private higher cost institutions. I'm going to end with that, as far as the information that we have to share with you, and open up for any questions that you might have or comments.
Chair Geschwindner: Do we have any questions for Anna or Dave?
Christopher Anderson, Student Senator, DuBois Campus: I have a question. Is there going to be a chart or anything given at other presentations like this about how much money is going to be given out in grants from the federal government? Just as a point of example, was it 61 percent of the students receive some sort of grant money?
Anna Griswold: Some sort of student aid money, any, including loans.
Christopher Anderson: Out of the grant money given, I can think of 30 to 40 students at my campus alone that get 225 dollars a semester. That's less than 5 percent of what the tuition is. Why do we even get grants like that if they're not going to do any good? They won't even buy two books of mine.
Anna Griswold: You know, I guess we're pretty willing to accept 225 dollars that might mean that much less borrowing, and sometimes that small amount each semester can make a difference for some students. But I couldn't agree with you more on balance. But that is--seems--like a ridiculously low amount. But the federal PELL grant program has PELL grants ranging from--this year--from like 400 dollar minimum grants, I believe, to 2700 dollar maximum grants. So depending on the income level of the student, the grant amounts do vary.
Christopher Anderson: Well, also I just want to…maybe you can clarify this? What kind of process do they go through to actually look at the student to see how people get this grant money? Because, personally, I don't know of anyone at my campus that knows how the students get this money. You apply for it with a little pink sheet and send it off to the federal government; it comes back here and tells you you're denied or you get the minimum. I have to work two jobs personally just to be able to pay my rent.
Anna Griswold: Yes, there are students who qualify at the maximum levels. There are many students who qualify at middle levels or very low levels of eligibility--again, depending on many factors that are taken into account in the federal student aid application process. So, if you recall a very detailed form that all students must complete (and their parents must complete) looking at family income and asks that information--size of household, a variety of factors are taken into account, a federal formula applied and the results are a measure of approximately (on a national level) what program funding can sustain in terms of assisting families. So there are many determinants. It's a…I can point you in the direction of where you can find that formula on the web site, and how you can look more closely at how these determinations are made. I think what many students don't realize is that unless a student is a non-traditional age student coming in after a period of time between high school and college has elapsed, parents' income are a primary determinate and parents are expected to help support their students through college. But the reality--and we know this--for many students is that parents either can't, some parents won't, and that does not make the task of the student and how they're going to pay any easier. So I hear what you're saying.
Keith K. Burkhart, College of Medicine: Does that include the student and parents?
Anna Griswold: No, this is just a loan to the student.
Keith K. Burkhart: So we really only know half the picture?
Anna Griswold: Well, we attempted to put the average loan… The information in it's current form was not really as helpful as I had wanted it to be if we went into our data warehouse. We're going to continue to try to perfect that and get a sense of how we talk about that average, because a fewer number of families, parents borrow the loan than do students. We have over 30,000 students in the 44,000 recipients who have loans in their student aid package.
Jean Landa Pytel, College of Engineering: In your opinion, I'm curious about your feeling about the formula and the fact that there's some way of determining the parental contribution towards their children's education, and that an increasing number of parents need to indicate that's an unrealistic expectation. And in your experience and opinion, do you think that kind of formula needs to be looked at again by the federal government or do you think we can't do anything about that?
Anna Griswold: I think the formula is very, very rigid. I think it allows for moderate standard of…the formulas are based on BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) standards that speak to moderate levels of sustenance for a family based on family size. So that's one of the primary factors that is off-set against family incomes, and then the remaining income is looked at in a discretionary way. Understanding that families also have to put money aside for retirement, depending on how close the parent may be to retirement and so forth. So many things are taken into consideration in the formula. My own experience is that the results of the formula are far from the reality of what parents believe they can do, and without, you know it becomes…to talk further about it becomes a little bit of a judgment thing. Should parents from the very earliest age of their children have saved more money and planned ahead for these exorbitant--sometimes what seem like exorbitant--costs of education. If everybody did it perfectly, and if it were a perfect world, then probably those incomes would support, and they rest on the notion that people have planned ahead. But in fact, we know the reality is that many families within at best two or three years prior to going off to college, many, many families only then--and some even closer to the event of going to college--start taking a look at how are we going to pay, and pulling that amount of money out of current income is not so easy. Having planned for it over time would make it possible, and the formula rests on that premise--that is, the behavior of parents in planning for their children's education. I don't know if that speaks to your question, but those are some thoughts.
Robert G. Price, College of the Liberal Arts: There's a lot of good and interesting information here. One thing I miss is some scale over time that would really give us a fair sense of how it worked as an institution that's part of a state university in terms of a family income?
Anna Griswold: In terms of the students who are coming to Penn State?
Robert G. Price: Right.
Anna Griswold: The population that we know most about are those who applied, of course, for student aid, because they give the income information. Those students who don't seek student aid, we don't know about their incomes. We could conclude that either they're among the parents who planned very, very well, and even though they may not be incomes of means, they can still afford to pay the tuition and other costs. But they simply may be in a position to pay even out of current income. But of the families that we know--and I've been trying to look at this since my tenure here, and it's a little bit difficult because there are so many variables that have to be weighted and I'm not a research person--but in general, we have observations that suggest that the numbers of families from the lower income levels seeking financial aid is diminishing. My concern about that is that they are responding to the cost, see it as unaffordable, and if we can't deliver a strong message that says, "But don't worry about that cost. We've got an adequate financial aid program to help you pay for it," then we will lose those students, because there are institutions who can do that more so, and there are lower cost institutions within our state system where families would see it as more affordable. So, in general, I would say that the number of students we are seeing from the lower incomes is dropping off, and I can't draw that as a final conclusion or make any firm statement about it. It could be researched, I'm sure we could come up with something better than that. But we would have to look at what also is happening with family incomes in the population. Is it true also that incomes are going up?
Julie Cain, Student Senator, Penn State Erie, The Behrend College: I noticed in your last slide, thanks for providing that, that the average cost a 1997 graduate has is over 16.5, but at private universities it's 17.5, and we all know that cost at private universities is considerably higher than tuition at Penn State. From information I received several years ago from the Legislative Advocacy Network, I know that the state of Pennsylvania ranked near the top for funding at private institutions but near the bottom for funding at state institutions and Penn State University being, of course, the largest state university in Pennsylvania, is anything being done to lobby our legislators to change that?
Anna Griswold: In terms of funding from the state or in terms of the state…?
Julie Cain: Funding from the state.
Anna Griswold: For student aid?
Julie Cain: Right.
Anna Griswold: There is an issue in the state of Pennsylvania about the interplay of state funds at private institutions with the state grant program, the PHEAA grants. Periodically, that issue comes up in the legislature. Periodically, someone does make contact. I certainly have talked with people in Harrisburg within the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency about this very issue and whether there's real equity in that, and we can spend the next hour on that discussion. But, yes, there are concerns expressed. I haven't seen any indication that we're likely to see that turn around dramatically anytime soon.
Chair Geschwindner: Another question in the back?
Amy K. Glasmeier: Looking at some of your figures in terms of the costs the students are to provide, don't you think the figures for books on average is very low? I mean, I assigned a textbook this term that cost 110 dollars, and I couldn't even use the previous edition. They had been purchased up by the publisher. So we're forced into a situation where students' costs are rising for other reasons that we have no control over.
Anna Griswold: Right, it's probably time for the Office of Student Aid to do a different kind of survey that would involve many of you, on what our students are really experiencing with books. We started with a base level that seemed to be the right average allowance several years ago--four, five, six years ago--and then we call the bookstore each year and say, "On average what are the percentage increase in textbooks and supplies," and we apply that and do try to put in an inflation factor each year. But my guess is that there may become a need for us to look at that differentially in terms of costs of books across different disciplines, or are we way off the target and is it time for us to be fed up? My fear in doing it is it just widens that gap. That doesn't mean we don't do it. I think we have to be realistic about what the costs are and recognize and state that in our budget. That is our intent, and so that's a good point and one that we will look at.
Thomas E. Daubert, College of Engineering: Your chart 11A gives an offered admission, numbers of enrolled, and the number offered admission and the number that asks for student aid. But the number that's not there is how many were offered aid. Then you made some conclusions about those percents; they don't mean anything. What would mean something is, if of those ones that applied for student aid how many did you offer student aid? And look at the percentage on the numbers that were offered student aid, and maybe it would change that.
Anna Griswold: That's a good point, and making a comment that I left out there, every single student who applies for student aid is offered student aid, even those who do not meet the need determination criteria. The reason that we say that is that every student, regardless of their need level, is eligible to borrow under the federal loan program. To the degree that we consider loans as student aid, we would say that every student is offered student aid. So these are the students who were offered admission, submitted an application for student aid and would have received an offer of student aid.
Thomas E. Daubert: Well, it doesn't say that on your…
Anna Griswold: You're right and it should.
Thomas E. Daubert: The other thing is that…I don't know how other people feel. My feeling is it's getting harder and harder to hire part-time student aides. For 6 bucks, $6.50 an hour they don't want the job. It's harder and harder to get them. This is totally different than what you're telling us. Now, why?
Anna Griswold: I…that's not in my realm of experience. I mean, when students come in looking for work, we have a limit…the program that we manage out of the Student Aid Office is the Federal College Work-Study program. We know that we're able to locate and put students in jobs, and those who want to work do work, and if they don't go on the payroll and begin working early in the semester then they lose their award of work-study. But if you're talking about jobs in your department through what is known as wage-payroll at Penn State--where in your budget you just wish to hire students outright, part-time regardless of need or regardless of eligibility for federal work-study--there could be issues associated with whether those jobs are known to the broadest base of students. Whether they're targeted for students within the major or advertised broadly.
Thomas E. Daubert: Well, yeah, I'm just suggesting that perhaps the university offices simply ought to do more than just work-study, and they take and help an awful lot of students locate a lot of positions that are available that aren't being filled.
Anna Griswold: There could be more done with job location. We have introduced a web site which we're hoping will help in that process of students finding where the jobs are, so stay tuned. There are colleges and universities that centralize all student employment, even that which is now in the hands of academic colleges and departments, and allocate that out through a central process where students identify, "Hey, I need to work," and we can say, "We know where there is a job for you," and send you there. That is not how we're structured here at Penn State. The funds are divided out among the different budgets.
Chair Geschwindner: I think we have time for one more question.
Ernest W. Johnson, College of Medicine: I'm still trying to understand chart 15, and for 1997, as I understand it, at Penn State 63 percent of undergraduates average a loan burden of 16,500 dollars. Is that correct?
Anna Griswold: 63 percent of those graduating had a loan, had loans.
Ernest W. Johnson: Yes, that's all I'm saying. Is the average 16,000…?
Anna Griswold: The average loan across students is 16,500. Not every one of those students had 16,500. Some had 23,000, some had 1,000.
Ernest W. Johnson: Now, on the same graph on the highlighted side it shows data for private and public institutions for 1997.
Anna Griswold: Right.
Ernest W. Johnson: The question I have is, what percent of the graduates do those data apply to?
Anna Griswold: They are baccalaureate students, so they are graduates who are graduating with the undergraduate degree at the baccalaureate level. But is this…are you asking about, of this national data, how many are in that…?
Ernest W. Johnson: I'm asking, does this also apply to 63 percent of their graduates with the greatest loans, or does that potentially apply to a 100 percent, in which case one draws very different conclusions about how Penn State compares to these averages?
Anna Griswold: If there was an opportunity for me to get an answer to that back to someone here, I would like to do it. The data that we drew from, I seem to recall, did indicate that on average nationally 60 percent of students are borrowing. That is not just a Penn State average but a national average. But I would like to confirm that because your…I think I put it up there because I knew that it was a comparable number--that we weren't screwing things for that purpose.
Chair Geschwindner: We can certainly give you time to find that number and get it back to the Committee. And let me remind everyone else that if you have questions that you would like to have answered on this topic, don't hesitate to contact the Committee. Dave Roth or Anna Griswold would be happy to address those. But I think we need to move on to our next…
Anna Griswold: Can I just give our URL site?
Chair Geschwindner: Yes…
Anna Griswold: This data was drawn from the Student Aid Data Warehouse, which is based in our annual report data that's in much greater detail than this and provides a lot of information and the web site is www.studentaid.psu.edu. When you get into that, that's the Office of Student Aid Intranet, and you would click on the item called "Other Administrative Offices," and you would see Annual Reports. 1995-'96 Annual Report has been loaded in and we're currently loading in the '96-'97, and I think you would see it by weeks end or by Monday of next week. You're welcome to go in. We have opened that report up to all "psu.edu" domain.
Chair Geschwindner: Thank you, Anna.
Anna Griswold: Thank you.
Chair Geschwindner: I'd like to invite my colleagues to join me back on stage so I don't feel lonely. We can raise the screen. Our next informational report comes from the Curricular Affairs Committee. It's given in Appendix "D," Additions to the Guide to Curricular Procedures, and Peter Deines is here to present the report.
Additions to the Guide to Curricular Procedures
Peter Deines, Chair
Peter Deines, Chair, Curricular Affairs: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The reorganization of the University and the creation of the new colleges provide us with a multitude of opportunities for the development of new curricula and programs. It's the intent of the report that is in front of you in Appendix "D" of the Agenda to expedite the processing and the review and approval by stating clearly what the Committee on Curricular Affairs expects to take place prior to the proposals reaching the Committee. The expectations are based on the principles that the President and the Provost have expressed, and these are that we have one faculty at Penn State and that the academic disciplines should be cohesive across the university. It's the position of the Committee on Curricular Affairs that it's the responsibility of the collective discipline faculty across the university that the academic programs developed in individual disciplines are well thought out and academically strong. It's also the belief of the Committee that the best programs will be developed for students when the faculty across all locations is mutually supportive in their efforts in the development of the curriculum. Fulfilling the expectations that have been set out in this report will, from the Committee's perspective, lead to academically sound programs that are consistent across the university. If there are any questions about this report, I am happy to address them. The ultimate fate of this informational report will be incorporated into the Guide to Curricular Procedures that we will be revising throughout this year. So, how about questions?
Susan Welch, Dean, College of the Liberal Arts: I'm expressing concerns of a number of Deans both at University Park and not at University Park about these proposed regulations. It seems to me that they are adding a large number of new requirements and rules and regulations, which are going to make the process of reforming the curriculum much more cumbersome at a time when I think the University is going to face a big challenge just reforming our general education under the existing rule. I think that the Deans at many locations have some concerns about this. If you read--as you obviously noted--if you read the new rule, the Deans are mandated to do things in about eight points in a five page document, and there are a lot of responsibilities that are resting with the Deans for consultation. I would ask before this is put into the rulebook, that you come to CADs and talk to the Deans about where we, where you can share your perspective. We can share ours and hopefully work out something that the Deans as well as the Committee will find workable.
Peter Deines: Yes, I'm quite happy to do that on behalf of the Committee. I should mention that this report has been brought to the Associate Deans' assembly of the Provost, and that it has been discussed there in some detail, and the concerns that were noted there and raised there were addressed in revising what you see now. I would make two comments on this. I think we are confronting new opportunities here and also new challenges. I think we must make sure that the curricula that we develop are transferable as far as they can be transferred across the institution, which means that we must have a good system of communication across the system. We have none at the moment or one--a system that is working in a very cumbersome fashion. We have a system that permits curricular proposals to linger in various places because the responsibilities are not clearly assigned in some cases. So we'd like to make sure that the proposals move through our system as quickly as possible, and we are working to make this come true as best as we can. A second observation that I would like to offer is this: we are presently undertaking an effort to move away from the Blue Sheet process as we know it today. We would like to make this process electronic as far as we can, and we would like to institute a system that handles the approval and the flow of information easier than it is today. It would again be subject to the process of financial approval of various kinds of budgetary expenditures, so there will be an electronic system that we envision to make that process move fast. I don't think the Committee has, in any way, the idea to make the curricular process more cumbersome. It would like to make it more encompassing. It would like to make more transparent to the average faculty member what's going on in various parts of the institution, but it would not like to shortcut the broadly distributed responsibilities that exist within the institution. So I understand your concerns, and I think we need to work on making the process work well so that we have programs that are consistent across the institution.
Chair Geschwindner: Other comments, recommendations for the committee?
Rodney Reed, Dean, College of Education: I simply want to reinforce Dean Welch's comments.
Peter Deines: Sure, I would be happy…
Rodney Reed: We have gone through these, and what you have outlined involves considerable time on the part of the Deans. I can't image that you would attempt to put some procedures in place without consulting with the Deans, those whom you require do all the work. So I would hope that you would meet…
Peter Deines: Well, I certainly would…
Rodney Reed: …meet with CADs and get some feedback on this report. We all want to speed up the process. With all the work that you've done, we believe that you should get us involved with what is being proposed.
Peter Deines: That is quite understandable, and I will certainly take any opportunity that I have to talk to the Deans. I have talked to the Associate Deans, I'm happy to talk to the Academic Deans.
Robert Secor, Vice Provost: I think what I'm hearing is a request for a substitute motion, that you consult with CADs and see if that has any impact on this proposal and come back to the next meeting…
Chair Geschwindner: This is an informational report.
Peter Deines: This is an informational report, and I should mention that I think Curricular Affairs can do this without asking anybody. So we have the curricular authority to do this, so I think it's better to us not to do that; proceed down the road. I would much rather have the feedback, and so to make sure that the process works for the institution…
Chair Geschwindner: From the standpoint of Senate leadership, I think it's important to note--as Peter has said a couple of times, and I want to reinforce it from the podium--and that is the Committee has communicated with the Associate Deans, and so if there has been a lack of communication on up the line, I think we need to call on the Associate Deans to communicate with their Deans so that, in fact, we've got everybody working. Because the only purpose for this is to provide a procedure that allows us to have course proposals come forward and move through the system as smoothly as possible. There isn't any intention on the part of the Curricular Affairs Committee or the Senate leadership to slow things down or to put stumbling blocks in the way of any of this. So Peter has agreed to go to meet with CADs. That would be the first step, and I would encourage anyone else on the Senate who has concerns about the procedures or suggested changes, anything that would help this process develop, to please communicate that to Peter so that we can get this into the Guide to Curricular Procedures when they get that far.
John Lilley, Penn State Erie, The Behrend College: What is the impact, and based on what Bob Secor just said, what is the impact of our voting to receive this information a little before…
Peter Deines: There's no vote…
Chair Geschwindner: There's no vote. This is just informational, and Peter has agreed to go to CADs and work on it, so I think we've accomplished what we need to accomplish. That is, this is what we're thinking of doing folks, and we've already heard that there are some concerns about that, so we can go back to the table and work at it again, see what we can come up with.
Peter Deines: Right, I think this is information. I think the Curricular Affairs Committee is very much interested, as we state in the introduction, to make this process work smoothly. What our observation presently is, is that the consultation process is breaking down. We get proposals in which insufficient consultation has taken place, and we need to go back to the Deans to figure out what went wrong, and that, I think, is not efficient. So we will keep on working on this, okay? Thank you for your comments, and I would encourage you to let me have any concerns that you have.
Chair Geschwindner: Thank you Peter. We'll move on to our next report, which is the report of the Libraries Committee, Appendix "E," The Report on the Serials Dilemma: An Update. Felix Lukezic is here to introduce the report.
Report on the Serials Dilemma: An Update
Felix L. Lukezic, Chair
Felix L. Lukezic, Chair, Senate Committee on Libraries: Thank you, Lou. I don't think I have to introduce this report. I think the President did it. All I have to do is call on Bonnie here, who is our charge from the Library Acquisitions, and she'll handle the report.
Bonnie MacEwan, Collections Officer, University Libraries: I'm Bonnie MacEwan, the Collections Officer for the Libraries, and I guess I feel a little bit like Felix. There's not a lot left to say after the President's very skillful outlining of the issues around this. But I would by way of background like to say that Felix, when he took over the Chair of the Committee, said that he wanted me to explain why the library was canceling journals in his subject area, and if you don't want a long answer you really shouldn't ask me a question like that. So it resulted in the update of this report, which I believe some of you have seen in it's earlier version, and so this is an update of a report of exactly why it is that the library has been faced with journal cuts four out of the last five years. I think Dr. Spanier said it much better than I can. The cost of all library materials has been escalating way out of control for quite some time. Penn State has received generous increases over the years, but they're simply not sufficient to meet the rate of inflation of all library materials. If you look at the size of the increases the libraries have gotten, they are sizeable, but they're not sufficient to meet the kinds of increases of a… We've seen increases in this report. You'll see 194 percent for the one journal in Microbiology; 230 percent for another journal. You know, supposedly Humanities journals don't escalate at the same rate, but the journal of Medieval History has increased in price over the last five years 86 percent in the costs, and I don't think I need to tell any of you the library has not seen increases of that size. So we've simply been faced with an economic reality combined with the kinds of issues that the President raised. We need to move into the electronic environment to provide the Penn State community with the kinds of electronic resources that are just now becoming available, that many of you want, all of your students want yesterday, if not sooner. Those resources are very expensive as well. The University of Michigan just did a study, and to move a reference source from a paper environment in the library into an electronic environment, they think the cost increased faced by the library is around 600 percent in the first year. So it's very costly for us to help move the university into this electronic environment, which clearly better serves the needs of all of our students--not just at University Park, at all locations. So we're faced with a situation where our increases really aren't sufficient to maintain the journal base, and even if they were it probably wouldn't be wise to continue to cut back on the number of books that we buy and not be able to add new electronic resources to our base of resources that we're providing. It's not clear to me that we should just continue to give every penny that the university can possibly give us to these journal publishers, who are making tremendous profits from continuing to charge us more and more for journals. One thing I want to be sure you know is the library, in many cases if not most cases, pays considerably more for subscriptions than you do as an individual. For many scholarly journals there are two pricing ranges. There's a price for an institutional subscription, and then there's a price for the individual subscription, and this is further complicated by the fact for many journals, unless we have an institutional subscription, the publisher will not let you have an individual subscription, either in paper form or in the electronic form, and more and more of you are bringing us forms for us to sign. For you to be able to get electronic access to the journal, we have to show that we have a paper copy sitting on our shelves that we've paid an institutional rate for. I think rather than belaboring this, you have the report in front of you, we've talked about these issues, you heard the President. I'd be glad to answer questions or address concerns.
Peter A. Thrower, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences: A comment which may be of interest to people who are interested in this kind of thing: I don't know whether you saw the article in the Economist last week, which was very good, I thought, about this whole dilemma, and the statement in there that publishers profit on this kind of enterprise somewhere in the range of 40 percent. I read this with interest because (I put my cards on the table) I'm editor-in-chief for one of Elsevier's journals, and of course they get my expertise and my service for very little, and they make all those profits on it. And the article makes some interesting points, but finished up by stating that some of the professional societies are going to electronic journals, and they cited specifically the journal of the Optical Society of America. The Optical Society of America is instituting an electronic journal for which authors will pay a 50 dollar fee for submission, which is to cover the cost of reviewing--and the "credentializing" was that word that President Spanier used earlier on--and then if it's successful they will pay a fee of 300 dollars for putting it on the electronic net format and that will be the end of it. There will be no charge to libraries and to individuals for access to that. It seems to me that the way they develop the thought in the article, this was the way that a lot of societies are going, and I know that the society of which I'm a member is certainly looking in that direction, so all may not be lost.
Bonnie MacEwan: I think we're going to hear that phrase "credentializing" a good bit in the next few years as we talk about the scholarly communication system. I was aware of that model being proposed and explored. I haven't seen the article--interesting point.
Michael E. Broyles, College of Arts and Architecture: Under short term strategies, one of the things you mentioned was alternative access such as Uncover and things like that. What I'm curious about for, let's say, articles that would not be covered in something like that traditionally, versus Penn State would not have as a faculty member or student who might request them through Inter-Library Loan. Of course a wonderful solution, ideally, would be to have those things delivered sort of quickly electronically. I know that there are problems with that. I'm wondering if we could sort of discuss that possibility and what the problems are.
Bonnie MacEwan: Thank you, Michael. That was one of the things I cut out of my remarks in the interest of time. I think there are really two pieces, two answers to your question. One is, as a short term strategy there are increasing numbers of document delivery services, both for very specialized journals and very generalized more that core of journals that you find commonly in an academic library. The best known of these services is "Carl Uncover," but there are quite a number of them, and increasingly they are working toward a service that will actually deliver to a fax machine in your office material that's of interest to you. There are a lot of options around that we're exploring, and we are in fact using a document delivery service to get articles more quickly. In some ways a more complicated but more exciting project is the libraries of the Big Ten are involved in a project called the "Virtual Electronic Library." Right now you're able to--many of you from your offices could get into the 13 library catalogs and directly request a book, request a monograph from any of the 13 libraries of the Big Ten, and it will be delivered very quickly. There's an agreement among those libraries to try to deliver books within a very short amount of time. We are working toward providing a similar service for journal articles, and there are numerous technical problems which I won't belabor here, but we're working very hard on resolving them with the hope that we'll be able to get them solved and get journal articles delivered from one Big Ten library to another, very quickly. At the same time, those of us in Collection Development, particularly the Subject Specialists, for example the music librarians are working together to try to rationalize the collections between the libraries so that we can cover the various fields of knowledge in ways that make sense for our individual institutions but also allow us to maintain the broadest base of scholarly resources.
Michael E. Broyles: Assuming that you can do it technically, in terms of the new copyright law, are there problems there or is this something that you may be overcoming?
Bonnie MacEwan: Well, of course we don't know what the new copyright law is going to say. So that's a very difficult question to answer. I think the short answer is, probably whatever the new copyright law says, it's going to be more difficult and perhaps more costly. We're hoping it's not impossible.
Shelton S. Alexander, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences: What happens, for example, if I donate--say I have 10 years of a journal--to the library. Is it illegal for you to then let other people use it?
Bonnie MacEwan: It really depends on the journal. But you're right, for some journals, just as I described the situation, where you can't have--you are not allowed to have an individual subscription if we don't have an institutional subscription. For some individual subscriptions, you actually signed an agreement that you won't give your copies to the library if the library does not already have an institutional subscription. In the past, Penn State has been quite conservative about following those rules. It causes us tremendous pain to turn down valuable resources that we know would be of tremendous use. But at the same time we don't want to expose Penn State to legal action.
Shelton S. Alexander: That sounds like something for a legal challenge.
Bonnie MacEwan: I'm looking at my dean to see if she wants a legal challenge this week.
Shelton S. Alexander: What about the alternative? If I want to make it known that I have 10 years of a journal, and my colleagues, they'd like to become part of the…if they can do so…if I'm willing to do that. Is there any reason you can't let that be known?
Bonnie MacEwan: I certainly would leave that between you, your colleagues and the publisher of the journal to whom I don't speak regularly.
Shelton S. Alexander: I don't believe individuals are governed by the…
Bonnie MacEwan: Certainly the rules that would govern your behavior or my behavior as an individual faculty member are different than the ones that rule my behavior as Collections Officer for the libraries.
Deidre E. Jago, Penn State Hazleton: For campus locations other than University Park, if University Park has a subscription to a journal, would that rule that Shelton just spoke about be in effect for other locations as well?
Bonnie MacEwan: No, we…that's one of our challenges at Penn State. When we purchase materials for the libraries, we purchase them for all of Penn State. Penn State University Libraries, wherever materials are located, those resources are available to faculty, staff, students at all locations. We move a tremendous amount of material around every single day, and we fax many articles, mostly from University Park where the journal collections tend to be longer and deeper from locations all the time. We insist upon this with all of our publishers, including our electronic publishers. I would say a major portion of my time now is involved in discussing with electronic publishers that we're going to require this for our electronic resources.
Deidre E. Jago: There's a question I had, maybe I didn't say it quite well enough, if I have a journal that I would like to donate to my campus location would I be allowed to do that?
Bonnie MacEwan: If we have a paper subscription?
Deidre E. Jago: Yes.
Bonnie MacEwan: That's a good question. I don't know the answer to that. I'd be glad to investigate. I'm inclined to say yes, but…
Brian B. Tormey, Penn State Altoona College: Related to that, I'm thinking in the more informal sense perhaps, where you might establish a departmental reading room with donated journals, where students and faculty would have access. How would that interplay for us?
Bonnie MacEwan: If it's not part of the libraries, I really think it's really up to you.
Chair Geschwindner: It sounds like you're all sitting out there with these really expensive journals, and without these restrictions that you're ready to donate to the library, and I would encourage you to work with Bonnie and figure out how to make this happen.
Bonnie MacEwan: Yes, if you have, for these individual kinds of things, I'm findable.
Chair Geschwindner: We have time for one more question. You have another question?
Bonnie MacEwan: I would just like to conclude to say that the libraries need you to work with us. I think the President said it far more eloquently than I ever can, but this is not a problem that the libraries can own on this. It's something that we have to own as an academic community. What has happened to the prices of journals has clearly caused tremendous pressure on the research processes of this university. Solving this problem is something that we're going to have to all work together toward. I'd love it if I could just figure it out all by myself, but I need all of you and all of your colleagues working on this. Thank you for your time and your patience.
Chair Geschwindner: Thank you very much. We move on to the report of the Outreach Activities Committee, Appendix "F," the Structure of the Office of Outreach and Cooperative Extension. Jake De Rooy will introduce the report.
Structure of the Office of Outreach and Cooperative Extension
Jacob De Rooy, Chair
Jacob De Rooy, Chair, Senate Committee on Outreach Activities: Ladies and Gentlemen, outreach is probably one of the least understood elements of the academic world which will be playing an increasingly large role in our professional lives. The Outreach Activities Committee, your Committee, is dedicated to increasing an awareness of this outreach, and to marshalling resources, and to informing you of the best ways in which our professional lives can be enriched by outreach activity. The chief organizational structure in Penn State for collecting and distributing resources and outreach is the Office of Outreach and Cooperative Extension. Our Committee works closely with that office, and we would like you to have a greater understanding of this office, and it recently has been reconstructed. So with that, it's my pleasure to present to you Vice President for Outreach and Cooperative Extension, Dr. James Ryan, to give an overview of the activities in his office. Jim…
James H. Ryan, Vice President for Outreach and Cooperative Extension: Thank you, Dr. De Rooy and colleagues. It's good to be with you this afternoon to provide a very brief update on the organizational structure, the key initiatives of Outreach and Cooperative Extension, and also to talk to you briefly about how our policies and programs are enhanced both by colleges and other key university bodies including the Graduate Council and the Faculty Senate. I know you've been hearing a great deal about outreach, both through President Spanier's comments and addresses in key initiatives. You've also seen outreach talked about and reinforced with the University Planning Council and increasingly today in the Chronicle of Higher Education. In a lot of other major higher education news formats and bodies, you see frequent reference to outreach, which is becoming now generally accepted as a common term in higher education. I'm also pleased to report that this week it's really a delight to host the President of the National Association of State Colleges and Land Grant Universities, Peter McGraw, who'll be here to talk to both the senior outreach leadership of the university as well as the academic leadership forum of Deans and Department Heads. His remarks will focus on the concept of the engaged university. An engaged university is one that uses its expertise in addressing the challenges facing society. Peter will also address the Faculty Staff Club Issues Forum, and he will address basically the focus of the Kellogg Commission on the future of land grant universities. As we know, President Spanier is the President of that Commission and he'll talk about the work of that Commission and its primary focus. That will be on Thursday afternoon, so I hope most of you will be able to attend that. Well let me summarize outreach for you, and I think it's best embodied in the quote that I've shared from Ernie Boyer: "The academy must become a more vigorous partner in search for the answers to most of our pressing social, civic, economic and moral problems," and therein lies essentially the driving force behind outreach. Outreach is in fact the process of extending our intellectual expertise and university resources through teaching, research and service to address these challenges--whether they're social, civic, economic or moral. Penn State does that very, very well and has historically done that very well, and that takes a number of forms. It could be credit or non-credit instruction, it could be the provision of technical assistance, it could be applied research, it could be policy analysis, it could be a variety of demonstration projects, and we have been doing that for a very long time. I might add that through Continuing and Distance Education Programs each year, we have outreach activities which involve more than 200,000 participants from every state in the union and from 80 different countries. I might also add that through Cooperative Extension and the programs and the faculty of Cooperative Extension, we serve more than 200 million Pennsylvanians in each of the 67 counties of the commonwealth. Through public broadcasting we reach more than 1.2 million households through public television and more than 430,000 listeners through public radio. Now, you might ask in the latter case, what does that have to do with outreach? Well, I'm pleased to say that more than 200 faculty members were engaged or provided information about their content, about their specialty through public broadcasting last year alone. So it's a very important medium for outreach for Penn State faculty and expertise. I am not counting at all the number of companies served--more than 1,000--and the number of employees of those companies served through research and technology transfer. Which then is a very large increase in the size of the mass we're talking about. All of these numbers considered, I think it's important for the Senate to recognize that approximately more than one-half of all the households in Pennsylvania have at least one person participating in a non-resident instruction Penn State program for activity on an annual basis. So, indeed, Penn State is touching the lives of almost every Pennsylvanian in one way or another. Without question, and in short, the faculty are the lifeblood of outreach, the lifeblood that drives the delivery of our outreach programs. Now there is an outreach support staff that works closely with the faculty in doing that. But I think it's very important to realize that unlike other universities, where either Extension or General Education or Continuing Education has a life of its own, independent of the institution, such as California-Berkley, here the support staff and the services of the outreach offices really support the delivery of the programs at each of the colleges and the faculty within those colleges. In short, there is not a program delivered through outreach that isn't delivered and approved by the college, and the faculty is indeed hired by the college, and the quality control for that program is exercised by the Department Head and/or Dean of that particular college. So every outreach activity we have in some way is integrated into the mainstream of the delivery of the academic program of the university. I might add that Penn State has a long and very rich tradition and history in this, and I could give you lots of examples of that, but let me just air two which I think are extraordinary. We were second after the University of Chicago in 1892 to develop the first correspondence courses. So our Independent Learning Program is more than 100 years old and we did that just about the time the University of Wisconsin was doing it as well. So if you look at those three institutions--Penn State, Wisconsin and Chicago--we clearly were in a very significant leadership role. I can't miss the opportunity to tell you, as well, that in 1907 Pennsylvania and Penn State had the benefit of one of the first Cooperative Extension Agents transferring knowledge about agriculture and home economics to the citizens of the commonwealth seven years before the Smith Lever Act, which created a model for all over the United States. In fact, in 1914 when that Act was passed, you'd be interested in knowing that Penn State already had 25 full-time agents. So Penn State has long been a leader in Outreach Activities. The President's new initiative is really in the context of integrating teaching, research and service to enhance those activities. There are six building blocks. The building blocks--let me quickly refer to them--creating a partnership between Continuing and Distance Education and Cooperative Extension and redefining the role of the senior officer for outreach. I provided a handout which gives you an organizational chart, which gives you a sense of the way that unit is organized, its relationship to the College of Agricultural Sciences, which is, in fact, a partnership and also it identifies some of the key units under each of those four major divisions, and they include Continuing Education, Distance Education, Public Broadcasting and Cooperative Extension. The second was to appoint a senior administrative officer for Cooperative Extension. Historically that has been part of the Dean's Office, now there's a separate administrative officer for that responsibility. Thirdly, create joint reporting responsibility both to the Office of the Vice President for Outreach and Cooperative Extension and to the Dean of the College of Agricultural Sciences. It's very clear that the objective of this plan in strengthening Outreach and Cooperative Extension is to bring the other colleges into more outreach and extension activities and programming. The fourth major strategy is to broaden the responsibilities of the Assistant and Associate Dean for Continuing Education, to give them extension responsibilities and liaisons in their college, and then finally to change the title of the Academic Council for Outreach and Cooperative Extension to the Coordinating Council for Outreach and Cooperative Extension. Another part of the plan is to create regional councils throughout Pennsylvania so that the faculty and staff engaged in outreach activities have an opportunity for coordination and collaboration in the delivery of those programs. The sixth general strategy for enhancing the program has been translated into 25 action steps. I will save you the detail of the action steps that are on the Outreach web site, but I will give you the general strategies. One is to increase our effectiveness in terms of internal coordination and cooperation. Secondly, to increase the engagement of faculty, staff and students in outreach activities and to increase the awareness, support, and recognition and reward for faculty and staff who engage in those activities. Thirdly, to increase the communication about the good work done by our faculty in outreach and to make sure that our external key stakeholders are well aware of the work that our faculty are doing on behalf of Pennsylvania and beyond. We also want to measure the impact of these programs more effectively and we want to develop a new budgeting model, which we just have, that allows departments to gain where there is additional revenue gained from these initiatives, so that they can share more effectively in the income that some of these programs will generate. We are really delighted with the partnership that exists between the outreach units and the colleges. It really takes two to make the outreach activities work. I've already indicated that really the hiring of faculty and the approval of curriculum and programs is the prerogative of the Dean's Office and Department Head, and the outreach units identify needs and provide support service for the delivery of those programs. As we enhance our policies and enhance our programs we are guided by the advice of three major organizations--the Outreach Committee of the Faculty Senate, which Dr. De Rooy will comment on just briefly in a moment, and two other major bodies, the Coordinating Council for Outreach and Cooperative Extension and also the new World Campus Steering Committee. In your packets you have information that really describes the charge of these particular bodies as well as the membership in each of these organizations. You'll notice the Senate is represented on each of these councils and steering committees. Let me quickly share some major initiatives of the Coordinating Council for Outreach and Cooperative Extension and the World Campus so you get a sense of some of their activities. The Coordinating Council for Outreach and Cooperative Extension is dealing with such matters as creating an outreach inventory so we can catalog and talk about essentially what we do in this area. They work with the Senate Outreach Committee in developing the Outreach Award for faculty. They're engaged in creating an assessment and evaluation process to measure program impact and are developing a process to ensure programmatic coordination statewide. The World Campus Steering Committee is tackling issues related to program philosophy, program selection and standards of practice. They're also focused on academic policy review, adherence to standards and policy enhancements. These are just a couple examples of the duties and responsibilities of these bodies. Let me close by quoting from the former Executive Vice President and Provost of The Pennsylvania State University, and currently the President of the Kellogg Foundation, William Richardson. Dr. Richardson recently at a major national meeting said, and I quote, "Colleges and universities are fertile sources of information for problem solving. Their primary functions of teaching, research and service uniquely qualify them to address the complex issues facing society." I personally believe that Penn State with its great history of outreach and its focus on integration of teaching, research and service is uniquely qualified and in a very unique position to be a national leader in this area. And thanks for the opportunity to give you a brief overview of this new organizational structure, Dr. De Rooy.
Jacob De Rooy: Thank you very much. Dr. Ryan and his office have been very generous in the support of the activities of the Outreach Committee. We are very grateful for, I think, a very energetic and successful partnership. Dr. Ryan has already outlined some of the things I was about to point out to you, and that is that your Senate Outreach Committee is active in policy-making committees that affect outreach, such as the Coordinating Council on Outreach and Cooperative Extension where we have a membership. We've recently requested and been granted membership on the Steering Committee of the World Campus. We are participating in the selection of and recipients of a university-wide annual Faculty Outreach Award. Let me just conclude by perhaps correcting an error, and I apologize for this. On the Appendix "F" there is an invitation for you to visit our home page and I urge you to do that, but the home page address is slightly incorrect, and those of you who have tried home pages know what frustration it is to have one letter out of place. So let me just make this correction, please: in the address www.cde.psu., the psu is followed by .edu and then the forward slash as you see there and then the word "outreach" all lower case. You do not need the rest, and then there was another slash. In other words it would be "cde.psu.edu/outreach/" and that is the end of the address. So I apologize for our mistake there. So I invite you all to keep in touch with us on the web page. Any questions?
Chair Geschwindner: Before I recognize anyone, let me point out to all of you that you don't need to go through all that address, because if you just go to the Senate home page and click on the Committee, you'll get there without worrying about what the letters are. Any questions or comments for Jake or Jim?
P. Peter Rebane, Penn State Abington: I was wondering if Dr. Ryan could just say a few words, and I mean a few: I have not quite gotten a handle on what our World Campus is and how we are proceeding? It is an opposing title, it's almost a frightening title, and I wonder if you had a few minutes just to explain that to some of us laymen. Thank you.
James H. Ryan: In a few words. The World Campus is a bit pretentious sounding, but in fact is an effort to take some of our best programs to where there is a very significant national or international need for those programs, through electronic delivery either asynchronously online or synchronously using video compression and/or satellite or other media to provide that content, allow Penn State to increase its access to those folks who need that information and would like to participate in some of Penn State's strongest programs. It is our objective to have more than 300 courses available in that format in the next four to five years. Some 20 to 30 programs, some certificate, some post-baccalaureate programs, perhaps even some masters level programs. Not the evolution of a comprehensive undergraduate program or a comprehensive graduate program at the professional level, but highly selective programs where we have great strength and there's considerable demand in the marketplace for these programs. This is being funded in part by more than a 2 million dollar grant from the Sloan Foundation to get the programs up and delivered in that fashion. This is a topic that I think the Senate will address in far more detail over the course of the next meeting or two. I think it's a really good question. I'd be happy to send you more specific information. It is an initiative now that has students enrolled as of January going through a pilot series of courses. The first set of courses is in Turfgrass Management, and it's a certificate program at the undergraduate level. We now have about 15 students in that program at this point working through the pilot of the World Campus.
P. Peter Rebane: I guess what triggered my interest was a brief notice that I read in one of the brochures sent out indicating that there might be some--what appeared to be at least, according to where I read it--some degrees available through this World Campus. I wondered if that meant that people could, in the future, get degrees without ever seeing a live professor and, knowing something about this type of degree from the former Soviet Union, that this turned out to be a disaster because a great percentage of former students in the Soviet Union never attended a class in a university. I was just curious as to how we would here ensure some face-to-face contact with faculty, and whether this would really pertain to the World Campus that we would proceed in some fashion that guaranteed some kind of interaction that we would look for. Thank you.
James H. Ryan: I think those are important observations. Interaction is a very key part of the instructional process and the learning process and it needs to be a fundamental part of any distance education initiative. I think some of the issues you raised will be discussed when the Senate more fully talks about the World Campus and some of its issues. I know the Senate Committee on Outreach is preparing an informational report and also an advisory and consultative report for the Senate on the World Campus. We do have information, if anybody would like information, do just send me an email and I'd be happy to send you the seminal document, the planning document for the World Campus, which addresses many of the issues that you've raised, which are really important issues.
Robert Secor: I thought I'd just share a comment with you. Last year I was on the phone a lot with our contact with the Middle States Accrediting Office, reassuring her over the concerns that the other colleges in the state had been raising concerning our restructuring of the CES. This year I had to call her to tell her about Penn State's new initiative called the World Campus, her response was, "I thought that would be the next step."
James H. Ryan: Penn State has an enormous reputation for thinking boldly, and I'm pleased that we all are part of that institution that thinks that way.
John Swisher: I think that's one of the things that's coming that will change how we teach here and so on. Many of us are already going to the web to put up tests, to put up syllabi, materials that take assignments back and forth, to answer questions out of class, etc. So we're moving that way anyhow. But I think the potential in video, tied to the computer changes, is what is face-to-face for a lot of us. So I fear there are technologies on the horizon that are really amazing and intellectual.
Chair Geschwindner: Thank you. I'd like to move on then. I'd like to thank Jim and Jake for their report. Our next report is the report from Senate Council, Appendix "G" the Census Report. Veronica Burns Lucas is here to present the report.
Census Report for 1998-99
Veronica Burns Lucas, College of Arts and Architecture: I was left at the last comment trying to figure out what it really means to be face-to-face, and I'm thinking, "Does it mean that you can feel the body warmth?" and I said "no, they're going to figure out how to put that on a computer, too, any day now." We may lose, in fact, the knowledge of what it means to be face-to-face, and I'd just like to remind us all that's a piece of knowledge that's kind of important. So here I am last on the Agenda and probably lowest in technology of all the presentations today, because I'm actually just dealing with words on a paper and I have to laugh in hindsight at President Spanier with his low technology, still struggling to get the machine on. Well, here I am with a lower technology and I'm still struggling to get it right, because I have to start off making a slight correction in the text. If you'll look at the last paragraph on the first page of the report, there is a change. Numbers got transferred from one page to the next incorrectly. The number 250 on the total membership of the Faculty Senate should be 248, which translates into a total number of elected Faculty Senators of 205, rather than 207, and all other numbers are correct. I think the report is pretty much self-explanatory. Of course, I'll be happy to answer any questions. The process is described very briefly here. The eligibility of the electorate is described. That is consistent with the process of eligibility of the past. The numbers have changed slightly, but that is something that of course varies with the size of the university. We do have--within those 248 total--we have the 205 elected Senators, 20 appointed and ex officio and 23 student Senators, and that student Senator number is broken down further. I think at that I will leave the floor open to questions.
Chair Geschwindner: Any questions for Veronica. I see no questions, thank you very much.
Veronica Burns Lucas: That's the nice thing about low technology.
Chair Geschwindner: We next move on to New Legislative Business. Is there any new legislative business?
May I have a motion to adjourn? The February 3, 1998 meeting of the University Faculty Senate adjourned at 4:00 PM.
Curricular Affairs - Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets) of January 23, 1998
Faculty Affairs/Research - Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Computer Aided Instruction and Learning (Advisory/Consultative)
Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid - Report on Current State of Student Financial Aid (Informational)
Curricular Affairs - Additions to the Guide to Curricular Procedures (Informational)
Libraries - Report on the Serials Dilemma: An Update (Informational)
Outreach Activities - Structure of the Office of Outreach and Cooperative Extension (Informational)
Senate Council - Census Report for 1998-99 (Informational)
Appendix II - Door Handout - Senate Committee on Outreach Activities
If you would like a copy of this Handout, please call the Senate Office at 814-863-0221.
(e-mail address was corrected)
Structure of the Office of Outreach and Cooperative Extension
The Office of Outreach and Cooperative Extension has been structured to include Cooperative Extension and the work of the former Office of Continuing and Distance Education. The new Office has responsibilities for continuing education, distance learning, cooperative extension, and public broadcasting. This oral information report will have two parts: (i) a report on the activities of the Office and (ii) a statement of the work of the Senate Committee on Outreach Activities with this Office.
The structure and operations of the Office will be explained by Dr. James H. Ryan, vice president for outreach and cooperative extension. This presentation will begin with a definition of outreach and the reasons for restructuring the Office. Dr. Ryan will discuss the role of faculty in outreach, the activity of colleges as partners in outreach and the representation of academic units in program initiation and design.
The chair will explain the work of the Committee and of the Senate in monitoring and assuring academic content of outreach programs that carry academic credit. The report will also explain the role of the Senate on the newly formed Coordinating Council on Outreach and Cooperative Extension, Steering Committee on the World Campus, and other activities of the Office of Outreach and Cooperative Extension.
Visit the Home Page of the Outreach Activities Committee:
Theodore R. Alter
G. Jogesh Babu
Kara A. Ballek
Craig A. Bernecker, Vice-chair
Christopher J. Bise
John W. Black
Stephen E. Cyran
Brian A. Dempsey
Jacob De Rooy, Chair
Kenneth J. Fisher
Nathan L. Hartwig
Michael R. Laubscher
Allen C. Meadors
Dennis J. Murphey
Gregory W. Roth
James H. Ryan
The Pennsylvania State University
The University Faculty Senate
Birch Cottage (814) 863-0221
Fax: (814) 863-6012
Date: January 20, 1998
To: The University Faculty Senate - For Your Information
From: Veronica Burns Lucas, Chair, Elections Commission
The 1998-99 Census of the faculty for the University Faculty Senate was conducted in the following manner.
Using an information base provided by the Office of Administrative Systems, a Senate census data base was created which included all personnel falling within the definition of the electorate of the University Faculty Senate as defined in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of the University Faculty Senate. This electorate includes all persons who are not candidates for degrees at Penn State, who hold full-time appointments as of 10/31/97, and who fall into one of the following categories: those holding professorial or librarian titles; those who are full-time instructors, senior lecturers and lecturers or assistant librarians; and those holding research rank (excluding non-continuing). These lists were sent to Deans and Directors of Academic Affairs of the various voting units for verification. For the Military Sciences, the list was compiled by the Coordinator of the Combined Departments of the Military Sciences at University Park. Military Sciences faculty at other locations were counted with that voting unit. For Librarians, the list was compiled by the Dean of the University Libraries. The Commonwealth College Librarians were counted with their voting unit.
Both a copy of the verified list together with a letter informing the academic voting unit of the number of its electorate and the number of Senate seats to be filled were sent to each Dean and Director of Academic Affairs as well as to the Coordinator of the Military Sciences and the Dean of University Libraries. A copy of the memo was sent to each Senate Council representative.
The total membership of the 1998-99 University Faculty Senate will be 249. This total will include 205 elected faculty Senators, 21 appointed and ex officio Senators, and 23 student Senators. The student Senators will include 1 undergraduate student from each of the ten (10) academic colleges at University Park, one (1) student from each of the following locations or units: Abington College; Altoona College; Berks-Lehigh Valley College; Penn State Erie, The Behrend College; The Capital College; College of Medicine; Commonwealth College; Dickinson School of Law; Division of Undergraduate Studies; Graduate School and Penn State Great Valley Graduate Center.
Veronica Burns Lucas, Chair
Jacob De Rooy
Thomas Daubert
Philip Klein
Margaret Lyday
John Moore
Peter Thrower
Abendroth, Thomas W.
Alexander, Shelton S.
Anderson, Christopher B.
Arnold, Steven F.
Asbury, William W.
Askov, Eunice N.
Baer, John W.
Bagby, John W.
Ballek, Kara A.
Berkowitz, Leonard J.
Bernecker, Craig A.
Bettig, Ronald V.
Bittner, Edward W.
Blumberg, Melvin
Brannon, S. Diane
Bridges, K. Robert
Browning, Barton W.
Broyles, Michael E.
Brunk, Quincealea
Burgess, Robert L.
Burkhart, Keith K.
Burrows, Meredythe M.
Byman, David H.
Cain, Julie
Cardella, John F.
Carpenter, Lynn A.
Casteel, Mark A.
Christy, David P.
Clark, Katharine E.
Comiskey, C. Michael
Coraor, Lee D.
Creyts, Timothy T.
Curtis, Wayne R.
Das, Jayatri
Daubert, Thomas E.
D'Ausilio, Michael
Davis, Dwight
de Hart, Steven A.
Deines, Peter
De Jong, Gordon F.
Dempsey, Brian A.
Dempsey, Richard F.
De Rooy, Jacob
Donovan, James M.
Elder, James T.
Ellis, William C.
Engel, Renata S.
Engelder, Terry
Englund, Richard B.
Fahnline, Donald E.
Farber, Gregory K.
Fisher, Kenneth J.
Floros, Joanna
Franz, George W.
Friend, Linda C.
Galligan, M. Margaret
Georgopulos, Peter D.
Geschwindner, Louis F.
Ghilani, Charles D.
Glasmeier, Amy K.
Goldberg, Marc D.
Goldman, Margaret B.
Gouran, Dennis S.
Gregory, Monica E.
Gunderman, Charles F.
Hanley, Elizabeth A.
Hartwig, Nathan L.
Hayek, Sabih I.
Irwin, Zachary T.
Jackson, Thomas N.
Jago, Deidre E.
Johnson, Ernest W.
Jurs, Peter C.
Kerstetter, Deborah L.
Kissick, John D.
Klein, Philip A.
Kretchmar, R. Scott
Kristine, Frank J.
Kuhns, Larry J.
Kunze, Donald E.
Lamancusa, John S.
Lasher, William C.
Laubach, Julie
Lesieutre, George A.
Lilley, John M.
Lippert, John R.
Lucas, Veronica Burns
Lukezic, Felix L.
Lunetta, Vincent N.
Marsico, Salvatore A.
Mastro, Andrea M.
Michael, Erica B.
Milakofsky, Louis F.
Miller, Arthur C.
Miller, Linda P.
Mitchell, Robert B.
Moore, John W.
Morganti, Deena J.
Murphy, Dennis J.
Myers, David J.
Myers, Jamie M.
Navin, Michael
Nelson, Murry R.
Oz, Effy
Ozment, Judy
Pangborn, Robert N.
Paster, Amy L.
Pauley, Laura L.
Platz, Michael D.
Price, Robert G.
Pytel, Jean Landa
Rebane, P. Peter
Reed, Rodney J.
Richards, Robert D.
Richards, Winston A.
Richman, Irwin
Richman, M. Susan
Robinson, James W.
Romberger, Andrew B.
Romero, Victor
Rose, Paul L.
Roth, David E.
Ryan, James H.
Scanlon, Dennis C.
Schmalstieg, William R.
Schneider, Donald
Secor, Robert
Smith, James F.
Smith, Richard M.
Smith, Sandra R.
Spanier, Graham B.
Stewart, James B.
Strasser, Gerhard F.
Strasser, Joseph
Stratton, Valerie N.
Sutton, Jane S.
Swisher, John
Thigpen, Kenneth A.
Thomas, James B.
Thrower, Peter A.
Tormey, Brian B.
Trevino, Linda K.
Turner, Tramble T.
Urenko, John B.
Wager, J. James
Welch, Susan
White, Eric R.
Whittam, Thomas S.
Wilson, Richard A.
Wyatt, Nancy J.
Yesalis, Charles E.
Young, James S.
Youtz, Susan C.
Yucelt, Ugur
Zavodni, John J.
Zelis, Robert
Ziegler, Greogry R.
Bugyi, George J.
Clark, Helen F.
Hockenberry, Betsy S.
Price, Vickie R.
Simpson, Linda A.
147 Total Elected
4 Total Ex Officio
6 Total Appointed
157 Total Attending
Curricular Affairs - Senate Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets) of
February 21, 1998
Committees and Rules – Student Membership on Senate (Legislative)
Faculty Affairs – HR-21 - Definition of Academic Ranks (Advisory/ Consultative)
Faculty Affairs - HR-60 - Access to Personnel Files (Advisory/Consultative)
Faculty Benefits - Implementation of 1996 Salary Equity Recommendation (Advisory/Consultative)
Graduate Council Committee on Graduate Student and Faculty Affairs – HR-36 - Educational Privileges for Regular Employees and Other Members of the University Staff (Advisory/Consultative)
Computing and Information Systems - Student Computer Fee Allocation, 1997-98 (Informational)
Outreach Activities – The World Campus (Informational)