THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY The University Faculty Senate

AGENDA Tuesday, September 12, 2017 – 1:30 p.m.

112 Kern Graduate Building

Senators are reminded to bring their PSU ID cards to swipe in a card reader to record attendance.

In the event of severe weather conditions or other emergencies that would necessitate the cancellation of a Senate meeting, a communication will be posted on Penn State Live at http://live.psu.edu/.

A. MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING

Minutes of the April 25, 2017 Meeting in The Senate Record 50:6

B. COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE

Senate Curriculum Report of August 22, 2017 Appendix A Seating Chart for 2017-2018 Appendix B

C. REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL – Meetings of June 27, 2017 and August 22, 2017

D. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR

E. COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY

F. COMMENTS BY THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND PROVOST OF THE UNIVERSITY

G. FORENSIC BUSINESS

H. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Senate Committee on Committees and Rules Revision of the Bylaws, Article I (Officers) Section 1 Appendix I (Introduced at April 25 meeting)

101 Kern Graduate Building

University Park, PA 16802 Phone: 814-863-0221

I. LEGISLATIVE REPORTS Senate Committee on Committees and Rules

Revisions to Senate Standing Rules; Article III – Other Functions Appendix C of the Senate, Section 11 Revision of the Bylaws, Article III Election to the Senate, Section 7 Appendix D J. ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS K. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS Senate Council Report on Spring 2017 College Visits Appendix E [10 minutes allocated for presentation and discussion] (Additional privileged information available in Box to Senators) Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs Faculty Tenure Rates: 2016-17 Annual Report Appendix F [10 minutes allocated for presentation and discussion] Faculty Rights and Responsibilities Annual Report for 2016-2017 Appendix G [5 minutes allocated for presentation and discussion] Senate Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics Annual Report of Academic Eligibility and Athletic Appendix H Scholarships for 2016-2017 [10 minutes allocated for presentation and discussion] L. NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS M. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE UNIVERSITY Murry Nelson, Professor Emeritus, Social Studies Education and former Senate Chair Potential removal of Rec Hall as a faculty/staff facility [10 minutes allocated for presentation and discussion]

The next meeting of the University Faculty Senate will be held on Tuesday, October 17, 2017, 1:30 p.m., Room 112 Kern Graduate Building. All members of the University Faculty Senate are asked to sit in their assigned seats for each Senate meeting. The assignment of seats is made to enable the Senate Chair to distinguish members from visitors and to be able to recognize members appropriately. Senators are reminded to wait for the microphone and identify themselves and their voting unit before speaking on the floor. Members of the University community, who are not Senators, may not speak at a Senate meeting unless they request and are granted the privilege of the floor from the Senate Chair at least five days in advance of the meeting.

Appendix A 9/12/2017

COMMUNICATION TO THE SENATE

DATE: August 23, 2017

TO: Matthew Woessner, Chair, University Faculty Senate

FROM: Michele Duffey, Chair, Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs

The Senate Curriculum Report dated August 22, 2017 has been circulated throughout the University. Objections to any of the items in the report must be submitted to Kadi Corter, Curriculum Coordinator, 101 Kern Graduate Building, 814-863-0996, kkw2@psu.edu, on or before September 21, 2017.

The Senate Curriculum Report is available on the web and may be found at: http://senate.psu.edu/curriculum/senate-curriculum-reports/

101 Kern Graduate Building

University Park, PA 16802 Phone: 814-863-0221

Seat Number Last Name First Name B-21 Abdalla Charles B-20 Abel Jonathan B-12 Adewumi Michael B-19 Aebli Fred B-18 Ahr Andrew B-17 Ambler Gilbert B-16 Andelin Steven B-15 Ansari Mohamad B-14 Aurand Harold G-15 Azemi Asad B-13 Banyaga Augustin Presenter Barron Eric B-11 Bartolacci Michael B-10 Beahm Mary A-6 Bechtel-Wherry Lori A-5 Belanger Jonna A-4 Berg Arthur Officer Table Bérubé Michael A-3 Bieschke Kathy A-2 Bishop-Pierce Renee K-9 Blakney Terry Exec.Dir. Seat Blasko Dawn J-15 Borromeo Renee L-33 Breakey Laurie B-3 Brennan Mark B-4 Bridges Robert L-5 Brigger Clark B-5 Brown Claudia B-6 Brown Richard B-7 Bruno Michael C-14 Brunsden Victor G-14 Bryan Julia C-15 Butler William C-16 Casper Gretchen C-17 Casteel Mark C-18 Chen Wei-fan C-19 Cios Theodore C-20 Clark Mary Beth C-21 Clements Ann C-22 Clifford Matthew C-23 Cockroft Kevin C-24 Connolly-Ahern Colleen

C-25 Conti Delia D-28 Cusumano Joseph D-27 Davis Dwight D-26 Debellis Hunter D-25 Decker Alicia D-24 DeFranco Joanna D-23 Dendle Peter D-22 Dietz Amy D-21 Douds Anne E-14 Duffey Michele D-20 Dunn Wil L-18 Duschl Richard D-19 Eberle Peter D-18 Eckert Jill D-17 Eckhardt Caroline (Carey) D-16 Eden Timothy B-9 Egolf Roger D-15 Elias Ryan D-14 Enama Joseph C-9 Engel Renata C-8 Farmer Beth C-7 Franklin Wendell C-6 Friedenberg Marc C-5 Funk Raymond F-11 Furfaro Joyce C-4 Gallagher Julie C-3 Garrett Brad K-13 Giebink N. Christopher K-8 Glantz Edward E-16 Glenna Leland E-17 Golden Lonnie E-18 Grigley Lisa J-16 Grimes Galen E-19 Griswold Anna E-20 Guay Terrence E-23 Han David E-27 Hanes Madlyn L-24 Hanses Mathias L-25 Hardin Marie C-10 Harrison Terry E-24 Harrison Rachel E-13 Harwell Kevin C-12 Hayford Harold

E-25 Heaney Peter L-36 Hodgdon Kathleen E-26 Holt Sharon E-28 Horn Mark E-29 Hristov Alex E-30 Hughes Janet F-28 Jaap James F-27 Jablokow Kathryn K-18 Jett Dennis H-16 Jolly Rosemary Presenter Jones Nicholas F-26 Jones Maureen F-25 Jordan Matthew F-24 Jurs Peter F-23 Kaag Matthew F-22 Kahl David F-21 Kalavar Jyotsna F-20 Kalisperis Loukas F-19 Keiler Kenneth F-18 Kennedy-Phillips Lance F-17 King Beth F-16 King Brian F-15 Kitko Lisa F-14 Korner Barbara F-13 Krajsa Michael D-10 Krasilnikov Andrey D-9 Kubat Robert D-8 Kurian Mathew D-7 Lang Dena D-11 Larson Daniel D-6 Lawlor Timothy D-5 Lesk Arthur D-4 Levine Martha D-3 Liechty John K-14 Linehan Peter E-15 Linn Suzanna K-7 Lobaugh Michael K-6 Lobo Hansel K-15 Lopez Hector L-34 Love Yvonne E-4 Mahan Carolyn E-5 Maitland Carleen C-11 Mangel Lisa

E-6 Markle Jacqueline E-7 Marko Frantisek E-8 Maurer Clifford E-9 Mazzucato Anna E-10 McDill Marc E-11 McKinney Laura G-16 Melton Robert G-17 Messner John G-18 Meyers Craig G-19 Michels Margaret G-20 Miles Mary G-21 Miller Charles G-22 Mookerjee Rajen G-23 Nelson Keith G-24 Nelson Kimberlyn G-25 Neves Rogerio G-26 Noce Kathleen G-27 Nousek John G-28 Nelatury Sudershan G-29 Novotny Eric K-17 Ofosu Willie G-30 Ogrodnik Monica H-32 Ozment Judith A-7 Palmer Timothy H-31 Pan Bing H-30 Pangborn Robert H-29 Passmore David H-28 Patel Ketul H-27 Patzkowsky Mark G-13 Pauley Laura H-26 Pawloski Barry H-25 Pearson Nicholas H-24 Perkins Daniel A-8 Petrilla Rosemarie H-23 Pierce Mari H-22 Plummer Julia H-21 Poole Thomas H-20 Posey Lisa H-19 Post David H-18 Potochny John H-17 Prabhu Vansh F-10 Pratt Carla F-9 Radovic Ljubisa

L-17 Regan John F-8 Reid-Walsh Jacqueline F-7 Reuning Kevin F-6 Rinehart Peter G-7 Robertson Gavin G-8 Robinett Richard E-12 Ropson Ira G-9 Rothrock Ling G-10 Rothrock Angela H-15 Rowland Nicholas G-11 Ruggiero Francesca J-18 Safran Janina J-19 Saltz Ira J-20 Samuel George J-21 Saunders Brian J-22 Schmiedekamp Ann D-12 Schulz Andrew J-23 Scott Geoff F-12 Seymour Elizabeth J-24 Shannon Robert J-25 Shapiro Keith J-26 Sharkey Neil J-27 Sharma Amit J-28 Shea Maura J-29 Shen Shuang J-30 Shockley Alex J-31 Shurgalla Richard J-32 Sideck Mark G-12 Sigurdsson Steinn K-35 Silveyra Patricia K-34 Sims Damon K-33 Singer Richard K-32 Sinha Alok K-31 Sliko Jennifer K-30 Smith David J-17 Smithwick Erica K-29 Snyder Stephen K-28 Snyder Melissa K-27 Song Jim K-26 Specht Charles K-25 Springer Jake K-24 Stephens Mark K-23 Stifter Cynthia

K-22 Stine Michele L-29 Strauss James K-21 Strickland Martha K-20 Subramanian Rajarajan K-19 Suliman Samia H-12 Sutton Jane H-11 Swope Kayley H-10 Szczygiel Bonj Officer Table Taylor Ann H-9 Thomas Darryl H-8 Thomchick Evelyn H-7 Thompson Paul J-6 Troester Rodney J-7 Truica Cristina J-8 Vollero Mary H-14 Vrana Kent J-9 Wagner Johanna B-8 Walker Eric J-10 Wang Ming J-11 Warren James H-13 Webster Nicole J-12 Wenner William K-16 Whitehurst Marcus C-13 Williams Mary Beth D-13 Wilson Matthew Officer Table Woessner Matthew J-14 Wolfe Douglas L-19 Wood Chelsey L-20 Yonel Brandon L-28 Young Richard L-27 Young Cynthia L-26 Yun Jong L-31 Zambanini Robert L-32 Zorn Christopher

Appendix C 09/12/17

CORRECTED COPY

(Shaded areas in [square brackets] reflect revisions made during the Senate meeting.)

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES

Revisions to Senate Standing Rules; Article III – Other Functions of the Senate, Section 11

(Legislative)

Implementation: UPON APPROVAL BY THE SENATE

Rationale: The past chairs of the University Faculty Senate represent an unused asset to the Senate and the University. Together they represent a vast pool of history of the Senate and its relations with other important stakeholders of the University. Most importantly, as former officers, they represented all of the faculty, and not just their unit constituents, former Senate chairs contribute a broad and long term vision of the Senate that would enrich the engagement of the Senate with its partners in university Governance. Currently the University Faculty Senate Standing Rules provide for a Council of Past Senate Chairs with a very modest role. The purpose of this revision is to enhance the role of the Council of Past Chairs to ensure that this resource is fully and effectively utilized in Senate and shared governance.

Recommendation:

That Article III, Section 11 of the Senate Standing Rules be and is hereby amended as follows: Bold indicates new text; strikethroughs indicated deleted text. ___________

Council of Past Senate Chairs: (a) Membership: The Council shall consist of the Past Chairs of the Senate other than theImmediate Past Chair. It shall have no legislative authority and shall serve only as an advisoryand consultative body to the Chair of the Senate [Delete] Members of the Council shall becurrently employed by the University. [End Delete] Those who are not already elected to theSenate by their units shall serve as non-voting members of the University Faculty Senate.

(b) Duties: The Council shall meet annually on the Monday prior to the first Senate meetingof the academic year. Thereafter, Tthe Council shall convene only at the call of the SenateChair or at the request of at least three members of the Council to provide consultation andadvice. The Immediate Past Chair of the Senate shall serve as chair of the Council.

(c) Except by special request of the Committee on Committees and Rules in consultationwith the Senate Chair, non-voting members will not be assigned to a Senate standingcommittee.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES, 2016-2017

• Jonathan Abel• Mohamad Ansari• Dawn Blasko, Chair

Appendix C 09/12/17

• Mark Casteel• Pamela Hufnagel• William Kelly, Vice Chair• Beth King• Richard Robinett• Keith Shapiro• James Strauss• Jane Sutton• Ann Taylor• Kent Vrana• Matthew Woessner

Appendix D 09/12/17

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES

Revision of the Bylaws, Article III Election to the Senate, Section 7

(Legislative)

Implementation: Upon Approval by the Senate

Introduction

This section of the Bylaws is long-standing. A situation arose after the 2017 Senate election wherein a faculty member who had been newly elected for the subsequent four-year term resigned before their Senate term began. A question arose as to whether the single alternate from that unit’s Senator election should fill the vacancy, or if a new election was necessary. This Committee ruled that the alternate identified in the most recent election should fill the vacancy. The proposed wording change is intended to remove any perceived ambiguity about the succession of unit senators. Bold text indicates new wording; strikethroughs indicate deleted wording.

Section 7 In case an elected faculty senator is unable to complete fulfill the duties of their elected term, the University faculty of the senator’s voting unit shall identify a replacement in the following manner: In addition to identifying an elected senator for each vacant seat, regular Senate elections shall identify at least the highest ranking alternate, that is, the candidate receiving the highest number of votes of those not elected. If more than one alternate is identified, the alternates’ names should be submitted in order of rank, based on the number of votes. The names of the winner(s) and all of the alternate(s) shall be reported directly to the Senate office. First choice for replacement is to be the highest ranking alternate, as identified in the most recent regular Senate election; if the highest ranking alternate is not available, then the choice will move to all remaining alternates, in order of their rank by vote. If no alternates are available from the most recent regular Senate election, then the University faculty of the voting unit shall hold a special election to identify a new elected senator, who will complete the unfinished term. This same procedure shall be followed in the replacement of committee members elected at-large by the Senate.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES

• Jonathan Abel • Michael Bérubé • Victor Brunsden • Mark Casteel • Ann Clements • Amy Dietz • Beth King • Richard Robinett

Appendix D 09/12/17

• James Strauss • Jane Sutton • Ann Taylor • Kent Vrana, Chair • Nicole Webster, Vice Chair • Matthew Woessner

Appendix E 09/12/17

SENATE COUNCIL

Report on Spring 2017 College Visits

(Informational)

The Senate Officers visited six academic units during Spring 2017 including the College of Arts and Architecture (January 23), the University Libraries (January 27), the Schreyer Honors College (January 30), the College of Information Sciences and Technology (February 6), the College of Agricultural Sciences (February 17), and the Smeal College of Business (February 20).

During visits, Senate Officers met with staff, students, faculty, and administrators. Each group was met with separately to encourage open and frank discussions. Two basic questions were asked in each meeting: “What do you enjoy about your campus and your position” and “What are the challenges faced at your campus or position?” These simple questions led to rich discussions.

Executive Summary

While colleges vary in their enrollment, academic programs, and the nature of their student populations, consistent themes were evident:

• LionPATH – There continues to be a common theme of LionPATH angst across colleges, and a sense that there is a reluctance across the University to raise the true severity of the issues to the University’s leadership. Among the issues still concerning colleges is an inability to produce accurate degree audits, the handling of transfer credits, a non-intuitive interface, and an overall inability to access the data that is needed to make decisions (e.g., data that was previously accessible via the Data Warehouse). In general, colleges reported that they are using manual processes for graduation readiness review, as LionPATH cannot accurately process the information and transfer credits that apply.

• CollegeNet – Colleges continue to report that classroom scheduling using the new system can be problematic, such as courses or exams being scheduled in rooms that don’t meet teaching need and rooms that are scheduled for 5 days a week but only used for three.

• The Graduate School and the new “Category P & R” designations – We heard common reports that the new Category P & R designations, including the right to teach 500-level courses, are negatively impacting faculty morale and increasingly making it difficult to staff courses with individuals who the Colleges deem highly qualified.

• Proposed changes to HR 21 – The Libraries are dedicated to the equitable treatment of

fixed term and tenure track faculty, to the point where they use the same professorial titles for all.

Appendix E 09/12/17

• The changing role of staff – In several of the colleges, staff shared a concern for what they perceive as a culture of “rankism.” They perceive that staff are considered “lesser than” faculty due to the nature of their positions, even when they have the same academic credentials. Staff also expressed a concern that they now serve a greater number of faculty and students than ever, without an increase in their own numbers. Increasing University policy and regulation requirements has further added to their workload. In addition, they are concerned about their professional development. They feel that Penn State does not have a defined career path for staff and that it is difficult to prepare themselves for higher level positions, as many training opportunities are restricted to those already in those higher-level positions and some supervisors seem unwilling to help them grow (which is perceived as a desire by supervisors to keep their staff in place).

• The changing role of faculty - Faculty expressed concern that they now spend a

significant amount of time on administrative and even janitorial tasks that used to be handled by others, wondering if it makes sense to shift these duties to the University’s most expensive employees? Faculty also raised concern about the increasing number of training and certifications they now have to complete.

• Risk management – Colleges expressed concern that Penn State has become too risk

adverse, hindering their ability to innovate, collaborate externally, and so forth.

Unit Summaries

In addition to the overall summary provided above, unique information was learned from each academic unit. Below is a unit-by-unit summary, while an appendix to this report provides detailed information for each academic unit. A careful read of this information will illustrate the unique attributes and successes of our academic units, as well as the important issues they are confronting. It is our hope that this information will ultimately reveal pathways for improvement.

College of Arts and Architecture There was a great sense of pride in the College from those we met with, particularly for its competitive programs and nationally-recognized graduates. Space is a concern for the College, particularly for the Palmer Museum of Art where more room is need for both display and storage. Its Zoller Gallery has become a popular place for students to gather, which might also indicate a need for more student spaces across the college. Growing a diverse student population was also identified as a challenge, as the College feels it needs more resources in order to compete with peer institutions. They feel that recruitment and retention of students is critical to the survival of the performing arts at Penn State, from the Blue Band to gallery exhibits to live performances. This College was especially concerned about faculty maintaining Graduate Faculty Status, given many of their traditional terminal degrees are MFA, MLA, etc., and not PhDs, which is the terminal degree recognized by the Graduate School.

Appendix E 09/12/17

University Libraries During our visit to the University Libraries, we learned a great deal about the transformation of libraries like ours in an era of increasing digitization. As the Libraries struggles to gain digital access to the resources we need, they are also concerned with ensuring that digital information continues to be available and that access to that information won’t be lost at some point in the future. This can mean a need to retain physical copies of materials even when digital versions are available. Space continues to be a challenge for the Libraries, as they try to balance increased numbers of patrons and the needs for public space, storage, and collaboration. Newer spaces like the Knowledge Commons, the Maker Commons, and data visualization walls have enhanced our Libraries and added a new mesh of services. But we learned that as the number of patrons and library services grow, security has become an increasing concern for staff. Finances continue to be a challenge, as materials prices rise every year and exceed the rate of inflation. Keeping their collections strong in light of financial constraints is a challenge. They worry that even their current strategies to reduce costs will not be sustainable, particularly with the loss of revenue from the student IT fee. The Libraries are embracing Open Educational Resources (OER) as a key way to help reduce costs not only for the University, but for its students, as well. Schreyer Honors College [Note: Since this feedback was compiled, the new SHC dean (Peggy Johnson) was hired and will start Summer 2017.] The Schreyer Honors College is in a state of transition now and is currently being led by an interim Dean. They are happy to report that things are going well despite leadership transitions! Members of the College are proud of their residential college feel within a large university. Challenges include their application process, which utilizes faculty reviewers as well as SHC staff reviewers. Faculty reviewers would like to see the process become even more transparent to them, while staff grapple with issues maintaining confidentiality for the applicants. The college is also addressing their desire to increase student diversity, with a diversity task force working on recommendations to the Dean. They also seek to increase the diversification of their student population with regard to the disciplines they represent (over half of the students are in engineering or science majors). Funding continues to be a challenge, as well, in order to attract top students and to meet need requirements of current students. We discussed some of the creative advertising the college had done during football games, but were surprised to find they received no break in costs from Athletics. College of Information Sciences and Technology Members of the College shared a great deal of excitement for the caliber of their academic programs and the attention they receive from external recruiters. They are proud of events like “IST Startup Week” and love seeing that concept spread across the University. There is concern across the college with regard to the name of the College and the name of the building they occupy, as well as for increasing space needs as the College’s programs continue to grow. Within two years, administrators report that they will no longer fit in their part of the building. Renovations are planned for the ground floor, and also being considered for the third floor, to

Appendix E 09/12/17

maximize their use of their space. We also heard complaints about the pending removal of the “IST” sign near the Gateway entrance on Burrowes, which they feel provides identity and recognition for the College. College of Agricultural Sciences Members of the College are proud of their academic programs and shared many positive attributes including the hands-on opportunities that are available (e.g., the Creamery, dairy facilities, greenhouses). Students would like to their curriculum newer technologies, such as “precision ag.” They also expressed a desire to have “ag literacy” incorporated into the University’s General Education curriculum. Faculty perceive a culture of disengagement in the College, which comes from both a lack of time and also a sense that their involvement won’t make a difference. Faculty also expressed a concern for job security and a desire for greater budget transparency in the College, citing that “faculty imaginations are probably far worse than the budget realities.” This was related to their expressed concerns for the long-term funding of their college, given the tenuous state of the PA State Budget. Smeal College of Business Members of the College are happy with their facilities, their location, and their leadership, citing that “everyone seems to care about what they do and where they are.” They are also proud of their honor code and wonder if it could be useful to have such a code in place across the University as concerns for academic integrity seem to be on the rise in higher education. Among their strengths, they also described their students’ study abroad experiences. They are frustrated, however, that Starfish can’t be used for study abroad or career advising, forcing students and faculty to have to use multiple tools across the advising spectrum. They are also concerned about the new University policy that prevents faculty who lead study abroad programs from having their family accompany them. They feel this makes some of their programs difficult to operate, as faculty are not willing to leave their families for significant periods of time) and that the policy also seems to be based on an assumption that all study abroad programs are comprised of groups of students following a faculty member around – a model that is not the one used for Smeal-approved programs which partner with international institutions. The issue of “One University Geographically Distributed” was also shared as a concern, as members of the College shared that the University has four business schools and programs that have very different missions. They find that having parity with other business programs offered at Commonwealth Campus locations is challenging to achieve given different enrollment criteria at various locations. They said their accrediting agency understands this situation and accredits them separately, yet the University requires that a course taught for one program must consist of the same content and rigor as that same course when taught for another program. Finally, members of the College shared their concern about students “gaming the system” in order to get into the College. There are stories of students taking MATH 110 instead of MATH 140 to keep their GPA higher, taking the same course multiple times to get a GPA up, and signing up for 30-40 credits once the “gate drops” in order to get into desired majors. Contributing to this is the open enrollment gateway through the Division of Undergraduate Studies. We were told that the resulting additional demand leads to challenges with staffing its courses. Additionally, the

Appendix E 09/12/17

college would like to see more of its courses specifically scheduled in its purpose-built building, but CollegeNet does not always allow this. They are hopeful that they can work with the University’s leadership to come up with creative solutions to these problems. Further Information

For more detailed feedback from representatives of these academic units, see the appendix to this report.

Prepared by:

Ann H. Taylor, Faculty Senate Secretary, in consultation with Faculty Senate Chair James A. Strauss and Chair-Elect Matthew Woessner.

Senate Council 2016-2017 • Mohamad Ansari • Rebecca Bascom • Victor Brunsden • Caroline Eckhardt • Samantha Geisinger • Galen Grimes • Kathryn Jablokow • Patricia Koch • Ellen Knodt • Binh Le • Jamie Myers • Sudarshan Nelatury • John Nousek • Nicholas Rowland • Robert Shannon • Amit Sharma • Erica Smithwick • James Strauss • Bonj Szczygiel • Ann Taylor • Matthew Wilson • Douglas Wolfe • Matthew Woessner

Appendix F 09/12/17

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS

Faculty Tenure Rates: 2016-17 Annual Report

(Informational)

Introduction For the past twenty years, Penn State has analyzed the rates at which its provisionally appointed faculty members achieve tenure. Tabulations are shared annually with Penn State’s deans and with the University Faculty Senate. This report and an archive of prior years’ reports are available on the Department of Planning and Institutional Research web page (www.opa.psu.edu/planning_research/reports/tenureflow.html). This report is conducted at the request of and provided to the Faculty Affairs Committee of the University Faculty Senate. Distribution of Penn State Faculty In fall 2016, Penn State employed 6,178 full-time faculty members, including lecturers, librarians, and research faculty (Table 1). Of these, 2,930 were either tenured or on the tenure track.

Table 1. Full-Time Faculty by Tenure Status, Fall 2016 1

Tenure-Track Progression of Assistant Professors Over the past decade, an average of 158 faculty members have entered provisional status annually at Penn State. Table 2 shows the tenure achievement rates for entering cohorts for whom sufficient time has passed to allow outcomes to be observed. Specifically, tenure rates in Table 2 are calculated from the time of appointment through the seventh year (which allows for the handful of individuals who “stop the clock” for one year during the provisional period). It is extremely rare for a faculty member to stop the tenure clock more than once, although it is permitted under University policy. For the last ten entering cohorts – that is, from those beginning in 2000-01 through those beginning in 2009-10 – 58% of new entrants received tenure by the end of their seventh year. This does not mean that the corresponding 42% were denied tenure; assistant professors leave the tenure track for many reasons.

1 Retrieved from Penn State Fact Book, https://budget.psu.edu/factbook/HrDynamic/FacultyDistributionBytenure PSULaw.aspx?ReportCode=Tenure&YearCode=2016humors&FBPlusIndc=N

Faculty type Number Percentage Tenured 2,258 36.5% Tenure track 672 10.9% Other 3,248 52.6% Total 6,178 100.0%

Appendix F 09/12/17

2

Table 2. Tenure Rates over the Past Decade by Gender and Minority Status

Cohort Year

Number of

Entrants - All

Percent Tenured

- All

Number of

Female Entrants

Percent Females Tenured

Number of Male Entrants

Percent Males

Tenured

Number of

Minority Entrants

Percent Minoriti

es Tenured

Number of Non-

minority Entrants

Percent Non-

minority Tenured

2000-01 190 60% 72 50% 118 66% 31 52% 159 62% 2001-02 183 58% 77 60% 106 57% 41 63% 142 56% 2002-03 189 62% 76 58% 113 65% 56 54% 133 65% 2003-04 158 60% 68 58% 90 57% 45 51% 113 64% 2004-05 130 59% 42 50% 87 63% 30 63% 99 58% 2005-06 147 56% 64 48% 83 63% 56 52% 91 59% 2006-07 134 54% 64 48% 70 60% 46 59% 88 52% 2007-08 160 63% 67 52% 93 71% 61 59% 99 66% 2008-09 162 55% 58 52% 104 56% 59 49% 103 57% 2009-10 130 55% 57 47% 73 62% 54 56% 76 55% Ten-Year

Total 1,583 58% 646 53% 937 62% 480 55% 1,103 60%

Tables 1 & 2 Notes

• Each cohort includes new entrants into provisional status. So, for example, faculty members who have not completed dissertations and who may have been hired initially into a fixed-term position are included in a tenure cohort for the year in which they formally entered the tenure track. The cohorts also include library faculty of equivalent rank. As explained in the narrative, Tables 1 & 2 track cohorts through the seventh year – that is, one year past the normal tenure-decision point. Therefore, in Table 2, tenure rates include individuals who "stopped the clock" for one year. Typically, there are about 20 or so such cases, University-wide, in any year's cohort.

• These cohorts include all Penn State locations except for the Pennsylvania College of Technology. Cohorts prior to 2008-09 do not include the Dickinson School of Law.

• Minority faculty include all faculty members whose race/ethnicity is not White. This category includes all faculty whose race/ethnicity is reported as international.

Table 2 also provides tenure rates by gender and minority status. As in prior years, there remains a noticeable gender gap. In aggregate over the past decade, 62% of males achieved tenure while only 53% of females did so. Similarly, the ten-year average tenure rate for minority faculty (defined as Hispanic/Latino, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian, Black/African American, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, multiracial, and international) were lower than that of non-minority (White) faculty (55% compared to 60%). Overall, the aggregate tenure rate for females over the past decade is lower than for males (55% compared to 59%). On average the minority tenure gap does seem to be slowly narrowing. The difference between five-year rolling averages for tenure achievement for minority versus non-minority faculty over the past decade peaked for the 1999-2003 cohorts at 7% and has declined to 3% in aggregate over the past five cohorts (data not shown). The five-year rolling average for the gender gap, however, was lowest for the 1999-2003 cohorts, but has been on the rise in the years since. The current five-year average gap in tenure achievement is 13%. Comparative data on this topic are very limited, but apparent disparities in tenure rates by gender and race/ethnicity may be related to differences across academic fields. Demographic groups are distributed disproportionately across academic units and aggregate tenure rates differ substantially by discipline. For example, a 2007 report of the Modern Language Association2 found tenure rates in the fields it represents–which include relatively large numbers of female faculty members—to be around 35%. This is in stark contrast to Penn State’s overall tenure rate of 58% over the last decade. In order to explore this issue, faculty in the 2009-10 cohort were divided into four broad discipline areas for comparison: arts and humanities, biological sciences, physical sciences, and social sciences.3 Almost half of the cohort (43%) are in disciplines categorized as social sciences, 23% are in the physical sciences, 15% are in the biological sciences, and 19% are in the arts and humanities (Figure 1).

2 The Modern Language Association of America. (2007). Report of the MLA Task Force on Evaluating Scholarship for Tenure and Promotion. MLA Task Force on Evaluating Scholarship for Tenure and Promotion. New York. 3 A list of University department assignments to the discipline areas is available from Penn State’s Department of Planning and Institutional Research.

Figure 1. Cohort Distribution by Discipline Category

Within the 2009-10 cohort, women are 40% of the biological sciences, 45% of the social sciences, 63% of the arts and humanities, and 30% in the physical sciences faculty (Table 3). Minorities make up 46% of the faculty in the social sciences, 20% in the biological sciences, 60% in the physical sciences, and 25% in the arts and humanities. These proportions can vary widely from cohort to cohort. For this cohort, aggregate tenure rates were higher for males than females in the biological sciences, physical sciences and social sciences (Table 4). Non-minority tenure rates were lower than minority rates in the arts and humanities, physical sciences, and social sciences. Due to the large variation between cohorts, the small number of women and minorities in some disciplinary areas, and the lack of key tenure predictors such as research productivity, it is inadvisable to draw conclusions from such data. These findings suggest, however, that this is an area worth further exploration. National data at the discipline-level are not available for comparison. Table 3. Disciplinary Category by Gender and Minority Status, 2009-10 Cohort (N=130)

Discipline Category

Percentage Female

Percentage Male

Percentage Minority

Percentage Non-Minority

Arts and Humanities 62.5% 37.5% 25.0% 75% Biological Sciences 40.0% 60.0% 20.0% 80.0% Physical Sciences 30.0% 70.0% 60.0% 40.0% Social Sciences 44.6% 55.4% 46.4% 53.6%

Arts & Humanities,

19%

Biological Sciences, 15%

Physical Sciences, 23%

Social Sciences, 43%

Table 4. Tenure Rates by Group and by Disciplinary Category, 2009-10 Cohort

Review History Arts and Humaniti

es

Biological Sciences

Physical Sciences

Social Sciences

Number of tenure cases reviewed 24 20 30 56 Number of female cases reviewed 15 8 14 31 Number of male cases reviewed 9 12 21 31 Number of minority cases reviewed 6 -- 18 26 Number of non-minority cases reviewed 18 -- 12 30

Percentage of cases granted tenure 67% 75% 53% 45% Percentage of female cases granted tenure 67% 63% 44% 32% Percentage of male cases granted tenure 67% 83% 57% 55% Percentage of minority cases granted tenure 100% -- 56% 46% Percentage of non-minority cases granted

tenure 56% -- 50% 43%

Note: Blank cells indicate small numbers of faculty in these categories (N<=5), whose confidentiality would be compromised by inclusion in this table. As noted, Table 2 only indicates the percentage of those who began on the tenure track and received tenure. Table 5 provides information about subsequent Penn State employment status at the end of that seven-year period. As shown in Table 5, small numbers (5% of the 2009-10 cohort) of individuals not receiving tenure remain employed at the University in some full-time capacity at the end of the seven-year window. Of these, five remain in provisional status due to tenure stays, and the remaining three are in non-tenure-track academic positions. Historically, the University has not, as a matter of general practice, retained individuals who have been denied tenure in a subsequent academic appointment.

Table 5. Tenure Outcome and Subsequent Penn State Employment Status at the end of Year Seven for the Past Five Cohorts

Cohort Year Number

of Entrants

Percentage Tenured and

Still Employed

Percentage Not Tenured

but Still Employed

Percentage Not Tenured

and Not Employed

Percentage Tenured and

Not Employed

2005-06 Total 147 54% 5% 42% 3% 2006-07 Total 134 53% 6% 33% 1% 2007-08 Total 160 61% 5% 32% 2% 2008-09 Total 161 50% 10% 37% 4% 2009-10 Total 130 52% 5% 40% 3% 2005-06 Female 64 47% 9% 42% 2% 2006-07 Female 64 45% 8% 44% 3% 2007-08 Female 67 51% 9% 39% 1% 2008-09 Female 58 45% 14% 34% 7% 2009-10 Female 57 44% 5% 47% 4% 2005-06 Male 83 59% 2% 35% 4% 2006-07 Male 70 60% 4% 36% 0% 2007-08 Male 93 69% 2% 27% 2% 2008-09 Male 104 53% 8% 38% 2% 2009-10 Female 73 59% 4% 34% 3% 2005-06 Minority 56 46% 4% 45% 5% 2006-07 Minority 46 59% 4% 37% 0% 2007-08 Minority 61 59% 3% 38% 0% 2008-09 Minority 59 44% 10% 41% 5% 2009-10 Minority 54 54% 6% 39% 2% 2005-06 Non-minority 91 58% 7% 34% 1% 2006-07 Non-minority 88 50% 7% 41% 2% 2007-08 Non-minority 99 63% 6% 28% 3% 2008-09 Non-minority 103 53% 10% 34% 3% 2009-10 Non-minority 76 51% 4% 41% 4%

National higher education databases do not normally include tenure achievement rates comparable to the Penn State data in this report. Table 6 summarizes information collected in 2015 for the 2007-08 cohort, through a special one-time data exchange among twelve peer universities that participate in the American Association of Universities Data Exchange (AAUDE). Data was provided by Boston, Cornell, Michigan State, Purdue, and Rutgers Universities, and the Universities of Arizona, California – Davis, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota – Twin Cities, Nebraska – Lincoln, and Wisconsin – Madison. In all cases except for Penn State, the data are for a single (main) campus. As Table 6 shows, Penn State’s tenure rate of 63% (N=160) for the AAUDE cohort study was typical for this group of universities, for which the average rate was 65% (N=1,326). The different male-to-female and minority-to-non-minority patterns at Penn State were also similar, but slightly more extreme than those reported by peer institutions in the AAUDE study (Table 6).

Table 6. 2007-08 Cohort Seven-Year Tenure Achievement Rates from Participating AAUDE Institutions

Cohort Number of Entrants – Penn State

Percent Tenured – Penn State

Number of Entrants – 13 AAUDE

Percent Tenured – 13 AAUDE

All 160 63% 1,326 65% Female 67 52% 506 59% Male 93 71% 820 67% Minority 61 59% 433 61% Non-minority 99 66% 893 66%

Except for Penn State, these are main campuses only and exclusive of medical schools. Counts and averages for 13 AAUDE universities are inclusive of Penn State. Approval Percentages of Upper-Level Reviews Tables 7 through 9 summarize data for Penn State including Hershey, but excluding the Pennsylvania College of Technology, for each typical tenure review year. The tables present data for the normally sequenced (second-, fourth-, and sixth-year) reviews. Not all units report the information for year 2 and year 4 reviews in a timely manner, so Tables 8 and 9 are incomplete. Usually only 6-10 cases per year are dealt with out of the normal sequence (for example, as third- or fifth-year reviews). There are many possible paths through the review process (with campus committees, department, division, and school committees, college committees, and the University committee). These tables present the most common decision points in the tenure review process. In brief, for Abington, Altoona, Berks, Erie, and Harrisburg, the respective chancellors sign off at the dean/VP level – that is, they are not tallied in the campus chancellor column. For the other 14 campuses comprising the University College, both the campus chancellor and the vice president for commonwealth campuses and executive chancellor (who serves as dean of the University College) sign off. Great Valley faculty fall under the purview of the vice president for commonwealth campuses and executive chancellor. Faculty in the Applied Research Lab are eligible for promotion only, not tenure, and are not reflected in these data. Tables 7 through 9 demonstrate that the large majority of upper-level reviews at Penn State are consistent with recommendations coming from departments and campuses. Final outcomes have, likewise, historically been consistent with the recommendations that the University committee, Provost and the President receive. As noted in Table 9, in 2015-16, 88 cases made it to the dean level of six-year review. Six of those cases were denied at that level and 82 cases (including five early-tenure cases) continued to the University-level of review. Of the 82 cases presented to the University-level of review, 81 carried a positive recommendation from the respective dean. At the University-level of review, 81 cases were reviewed positively and 80 were approved by the President. This pattern is typical. Prior annual versions of this report have shown that the University-level approval percentage has almost always been over 90%. This report indicates whether faculty members received tenure; it does not explain why some faculty members do not receive tenure. Many individuals leave voluntarily, not necessarily because they were denied tenure. Penn State has been exploring some of those matters via an

annual faculty exit survey and interview process, conducted since 1997. The most recent Faculty Study, as well as an archive of prior exit studies is available online at the Department of Planning and Institutional Research web page (https://www.opa.psu.edu/planning_research/reports/facultyexitsurvey). Table 7. Year Two Tenure Reviews, 2009-10 Cohort

Review History Campus

Chancellor Dept/Div/

School Head College Dean

Number of cases reviewed 19 101 117 Female cases reviewed 13 44 55 Male cases reviewed 6 57 62 Minority cases reviewed 10 48 57 Non-minority cases reviewed 9 53 60

Positive recommendations 19 (100%) 100 (99%) 116 (99%) Female positive recommendations 13 (100%) 44 (100%) 55 (100%) Male positive recommendations 6 (100%) 56 (98%) 61 (98%) Minority positive recommendations 9 (90%) 48 (100%) 57 (100%) Non-minority positive recommendations 10 (111%) 52 (98%) 59 (98%)

Table 8. Year Four Tenure Reviews, 2009-10 Cohort

Review History Campus

Chancellor Dept/Div/

School Head College Dean

Number of cases reviewed 8 60 70 Female cases reviewed 3 20 24 Male cases reviewed 5 40 46 Minority cases reviewed 2 24 27 Non-minority cases reviewed 6 36 43

Positive recommendations 8 (100%) 59 (98%) 68 (97%) Female positive recommendations 3 (100%) 20 (100%) 24 (100%) Male positive recommendations 5 (100%) 39 (98%) 44 (96%) Minority positive recommendations 2 (100%) 23 (96%) 26 (96%) Non-minority positive recommendations 6 (100%) 36 (100%) 42 (98%)

Table 9. Year Six and Early Tenure Reviews, 2009-10 Cohort

Review History

Campus Chancellor

Dept/Div/ School Head

College Dean

University Final

Decision Number of cases reviewed 15 74 89 82

Female cases reviewed 7 28 35 34 Male cases reviewed 8 46 54 48 Minority cases reviewed 2 29 31 29 Non-minority cases reviewed 13 45 58 53

Positive recommendations 14 (93%) 66 (89%) 82 (92%) 80 (98%) Female positive recommendations 6 (86%) 28 (100%) 34 (97%) 32 (94%) Male positive recommendations 8 (100%) 38 (83%) 48 (89%) 48 (100%) Minority positive recommendations 2 (100%) 27 (93%) 29 (94%) 29 (100%) Non-minority positive recommendations 12 (92%) 39 (87%) 53 (91%) 51 (96%)

Questions about this report may be directed to Katryn Boynton (klb8@psu.edu), Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost, or Betty

Harper (BHarper@psu.edu), Planning and Institutional Research (PIR@psu.edu). SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS 2016-2017

• Michael Bérubé, Chair • Renee Bishop Pierce • Blannie Bowen • Michael Bruno • Delia Conti • Ann Copeland • Peter Dendle • Marcia DiStaso • Christopher Giebink • Edward Glantz • Terrence Guay • Betty Harper • Sharon Holt • Zaryab Iqbal • Rosemary Jolly • Lisa Kitko • Angela Linse • Barrie Litzky • Michael Lobaugh • Carolyn Mahan • Marc McDill • Rajen Mookerjee • John Nousek • David Passmore • Mark Patzkowsky • Geoff Scott

• Amit Sharma • Patricia Silveyra • Stephen Snyder • Bonj Szczygiel, Vice-Chair • Jane Wilburne

Appendix G 9/12/17

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Annual Report for 2016-2017

(Informational)

University policy HR-76 “Faculty Rights and Responsibilities” establishes the Senate Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities and defines the committee’s scope and operation. The committee may review petitions from a faculty member who asserts that he or she has suffered a substantial injustice resulting from a violation of academic freedom, procedural fairness, or professional ethics.

The 2016-2017 committee received twelve petitions from July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017; twice as many as in the previous year. Over the last five years, the committee has examined between seven and nine petitions per year. One petition was carried over to the committee from the previous year bringing the total to 13 cases.

Petitioners may claim any or all of the three categories of complaints in their petition. Three complaints claimed violation of academic freedom, seven included complaints of professional ethics, and twelve claimed violations of procedural fairness. Of the twelve petitions that were received by June 30, 2017 the 2016-2017 committee completed eight. Four petitions, received at the end of the committee year were carried over to the 2017-2018 committee.

According to HR-76, in the event that claims of bias or discrimination are a component of the case, the petitions are sent to the Office of Affirmative Action for a parallel review. Four petitions were sent to Affirmative Action for parallel review.

Of the nine cases that were examined, the committee found that the problems identified in three of the cases fell outside of the scope of the committee as established in HR-76 and were not investigated further.

The committee voted to conduct informal investigations for the other six cases. The topics of the petitions varied widely. One petition was based on denial of tenure. The other cases related to workplace climate, grade adjudication, renewal of contracts, authorship, and executive search processes.

The chair wishes to thank the members of the 2016-2017 committee, each of whom devoted significant time and thoughtful consideration to each petition. The committee members express our appreciation to all ombudspersons across the University for their contributions toward resolving conflicts and disputes at their colleges and campuses. We would especially like to thank the University Ombudsperson Pamela Hufnagle who has worked to improve processes, ensure compliance with policies and training and supported the unit ombudspersons in their work.

Additionally, the committee acknowledges the efforts of Blannie Bowen, Vice Provost for Academic Affairs, who retired this year. Throughout his tenure at Penn State he worked to

Appendix G 9/12/17

improve awareness of the policies and procedures related to faculty including promotion and tenure, annual review and mentoring. These combined endeavors provided thoughtful and responsive support for faculty members and administrators and helped to resolve disputes before they resulted in petitions submitted to this committee.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 2016-2017

Changes occurred in membership throughout the 2016-2017 term of the committee. The list below includes all members who served all or part of the term.

• Larry Catá Backer • Lori J. Bechtel-Wherry • Dawn G. Blasko, Chair • Marie Hardin • Jonna M. Kulikowich • Timothy Lawlor • Linda R. Musser • Richard Robinett • Paula Milone-Nuzzo

Appendix H 09/12/17

1

SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS

Annual Report of Academic Eligibility and Athletic Scholarships for 2016-2017

(Informational)

Introduction Each year the Senate Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics is mandated to provide a report on Penn State intercollegiate athletic activities to the Senate. This report focuses on Division 1 athletics at University Park. Included in this report are basic descriptive data, a summary of activities of the Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics and related legislation passed during AY 2016-17, student-athlete academic highlights, team-by-team data on the Academic Progress Rate (APR), and reports on the Graduation Success Rate (GSR) and the Federal Graduation Rate (FGR). Information

Descriptive Data of Student-Athletes (31 Varsity Teams) for Academic Year 2016-17*

1. Total number of student-athletes = 810 (Fall 2016) and 753 (Spring 2017)

2. Total number of student-athletes not eligible for competition for academic reasons = 16

3. Total number of scholarship student-athletes = 568

4. Total number of medical non-counter student-athletes = 4

5. Total number of exhausted eligibility student-athletes = 10

*Based on those student-athletes enrolled at the end of Spring 2017

Summary of Activities of the Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics - AY 2016-17

1. Major Activities a. The major legislative focus of the committee was to carry forward the work of the

AY 2015-16 committee on governance structure. In March of 2017 we submitted a legislative report on the governance structure to CC&R. It was not approved in its current draft form, with a recommendation that a task force be formed with representatives from CC&R and IAC. Feedback was provided to incoming ICA committee chair John Regan and the committee was charged by the Senate Chair to consider this feedback during the upcoming year.

b. A second major focus of IAC was to work with the Committee on Student Life to

examine time management issues for all Penn State students, although particular attention would be given to certain sub-groups who may have unique time management and time demand issues. These groups would include, but are not

Appendix H 09/12/17

2

limited to, student-athletes, adult learners, ROTC students, and veterans. This effort continues to be a work in progress.

2. Senate Informational and Legislative Reports

a. October 18, 2016: Revision to Senate Policy 67-00, Athletic Competitions.

See http://senate.psu.edu/senators/agendas-records/october-18-2016-agenda/appendix-g/. The recommendation was to delete item B of section 3, Grants-in-Aid of 67-10, which reads “Student athletes may not receive a grant-in-aid unless they are otherwise eligible for participation in intercollegiate athletics.” The policy is now consistent with Big Ten policy and the committee believed that determining receipt of a grant-in-aid should be the same for all students.

3. Self-monitoring of Student-Athlete Academic Excellence

The Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics continues to monitor various metrics of student-athlete academic performance. The Committee reviews three types of monitoring reports that are reported on a rotating basis. These reports include (1) student-athlete distribution in majors and colleges and enrollment data, (2) student-athlete grade distribution data, and (3) academic performance of student-athletes admitted to UP through the reserved spaces mechanism. This AY Vice President and Dean for Undergraduate Education, Robert Pangborn, distributed two reports. One report was the Annual Report on the Reserved Spaces Program sponsored by the Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling, and Student Aid. Data were summarized for 2009-2016. In academic year 2015, 14 reserved spaces were used in the Spring, Summer, and Fall. This represents about half of the reserved spaces available across all units of the University. Increases in reserved spaces were noted since 2013 reflecting increases in first-year admissions. A second document provided charts of student academic performance in 2014 and 2015 for the reserved spaces program. Dr. Pangborn also reported the results of a scan of all UP courses with over 20% of the enrollment being student-athletes. As in past years, no issues existed. Grade distributions between student-athletes and non-student-athletes were also compared; Dr. Pangborn reported no issues that arose based on these comparisons. In addition to the two reports that are typically reviewed, on request of the FAR and Athletics administration, Dr. Pangborn also reported on findings from a scan of grade changes, comparing student-athletes and non-student-athletes. He noted that approximately 10% of undergraduate grades are changed campus wide, a rate that is comparable for student-athletes. Russ Mushinsky provided two reports. The first was on student-athlete academic major distribution by team. There was no team that had a disproportionate number of student-athletes in the same major. A second report focused on Fall 2016 college enrollments and compared enrollments of general students in colleges with those of student-athletes.

Appendix H 09/12/17

3

Although there were no concerns noted, he explained that as usual, more student-athletes are in DUS during their first two or three semesters in order to find the right major. Once a student-athlete declares a major it is extremely difficult to change majors given NCAA academic eligibility requirements in terms of progress towards the percent of degree completed.

4. Approval of Competition Schedules and Waivers for Competitions on Study Days

IAC routinely approves competition schedules for each of the 31 ICA teams, paying particular attention to making sure the 8-day rule has been followed. Waivers for competitions on study days are also considered and approved as appropriate if adequate study time is built into the schedule before, during and after the competition period.

5. Student-Athlete Experience and Wellbeing

a. Senior Associate Athletic Director Charmelle Green distributed summaries of the Student-Athlete Experience Survey Data. The data were collected from Fall 2013 through Spring 2016. Across all three years, the majority of student-athletes indicated that their overall experience at Penn State met or exceeded expectations. The majority of student-athletes also indicated that their overall learning experience was good or excellent with an average rating of at least 3.40 on a 4-point scale. Other topics included on the survey were about the Morgan Academic Support Center and the Faculty Partner Program.

b. Charmelle Green summarized the Mental Health Task Force Report (March 2016) for

student-athletes. The Intercollegiate Athletics Mental Health Task Force follows five guiding principles: 1) provide leadership; 2) build communication and collaboration; 3) provide education and resources; 4) advocate psychological services for student-athletes; and, 5) develop a supportive culture. Data were collected by the Task Force for Fall 2015, and one important finding was that while only 1.7 percent of the University enrollment for 2015 are student-athletes, student-athletes represented 6.6 percent of all students who sought CAPS assistance. Additionally, since 2010, an increase of 26.2 percent of student-athletes seeking assistance from CAPS was reported.

Based on data summaries, the Task Force recommended several priorities that included: 1) expansion of mental health services to allow comprehensive care of student-athletes; 2) development of a comprehensive outreach and education strategy; 3) use of protocols for an institution-wide network of support; 4) development of communication protocols around mental health issues; 5) expansion of mental health topics in the BBH first year seminar; 6) enhanced awareness and improvement with detection of depression, anxiety, etc. with Sports Medicine tools; 7) collection of data; 8) an annual mental health symposium; 9) contact information for teams and staff; 10) creation of a web-based library of resources; and, 11) development of social media presence.

Appendix H 09/12/17

4

6. Other Reports, Tasks, and Discussions of the Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics

a. Morgan Academic Center Director Russ Mushinsky provided a tour of the new

location of the Center at the Greenberg Complex, McKean Road. The Morgan Academic Center includes many advising, teaching, work and study areas that are equipped with modern technology resources to provide academic assistance and support for student-athletes.

b. Russ Mushinsky reported on “How are NCAA Graduation Rates Calculated?” He explained the differences between Federal Graduation Rate, Graduation Success Rate (GSR), and Academic Progress Rate (APR). One of the most significant differences is that the Federal Graduation Rate is based on data collected by the Department of Education and only those student-athletes who enroll in the fall semester are accounted for; whereas, the GSR accounts for students enrolled in the fall, mid-year and transfer student-athletes who receive aid, and student-athletes who leave the institution in good academic standing are not counted negatively. The remainder of the report provided several comparisons of PSU athletes with national and Big Ten schools, with details by sport and gender. Details for all PSU teams were included.

c. The committee heard various reports from Sandy Barbour, Lynn Holleran, Charmelle

Green, and Linda Caldwell regarding Big Ten and NCAA activities, including the autonomy legislative proposals and efforts around time balance and management.

d. Lynn Holleran, Senior Associate Athletic Director for Administration reported on

unintended consequences of Policy 42-27 (class attendance policy). Faculty Senate changed the language to make it more obvious when classwork cannot be made up (for an excused absence) and that this may impact a student’s grade. This has direct implications for student-athletes; some of whom have reported challenges as a result of this change in policy. The Committee supported efforts by the Morgan Center to track how often this happens and what the challenges are.

e. Throughout the year Athletic Director Sandy Barbour reported on various topics such

as the Big Ten media rights that are likely to become public during the summer of 2017. ICA has earmarked some of that money to go to the Blue Band, campus mental health efforts, the Arboretum Arts and Cultural Center, and Summer Pass. Other reports briefly focused on Penn State’s decision against participating in Friday night football, and a discussion on the ICA Facilities Master Plan.

f. The Committee reviewed and approved participation in the Rose Bowl.

Appendix H 09/12/17

5

Student-Athlete Academic Highlights

1. Post-graduate Scholarships

• Two student-athletes were awarded Big Ten post-graduate scholarships: Geno Morelli (Wrestling) and Casey Francis (Women’s Swimming and Diving).

• Geno Morelli (Wrestling) was awarded the Big Ten Wayne Duke Post-graduate scholarship.

2. General Highlights

• For seven consecutive years, the Penn State men's and women's basketball and football programs have achieved a Graduation Success Rate at least four points higher than the Division I average for their sport (NCAA).

• The men's basketball team has posted four consecutive 100 percent NCAA Graduation Success rates. The squad's 100 percent GSR is 24 points higher than the Division I average and has been higher than the national average for 12 consecutive years (NCAA).

• Penn State is second among all Big Ten institutions with 5,875 Academic All-Big Ten honorees since 1991-92, its first year of competition in some Big Ten sports. Ohio State, which has 36 varsity sports, edged past the Nittany Lions during the spring/at-large tabulation and has had 5,887 selections since 1991-92.

3. Fall 2016 Semester – Academic Highlights • 498 student-athletes earned a 3.0 GPA or higher and a record 24 teams recorded an

average GPA of 3.0 or higher. 4. Spring 2017 Semester – Academic Highlights

• 495 student-athletes earned a 3.0 GPA or higher and a record 24 teams recorded an average GPA of 3.0 or higher.

5. Big Ten Conference Distinguished Scholar Award Recipient Past 5 Year History

*2012-2013 academic year; 68 student-athletes recognized *2013-2014 academic year; 73 student-athletes recognized *2014-2015 academic year; 69 student-athletes recognized *2015-2016 academic year; 81 student-athletes recognized *2016-2017 academic year: 97 student-athletes recognized *Overall PSU Nine-Year Total; 604 student-athletes recognized

Appendix H 09/12/17

6

6. Big Ten, Academic All-Big Ten Selections Fall, Winter and Spring

• 78 Penn State student-athletes (in 7 fall sports) earned Academic All-Big Ten honors. Below is the number of selections from each team.

Team Selections Football 19 Women’s Soccer 14 Men’s Soccer 13 Men’s Cross Country 1 Women’s Cross Country 7 Women’s Volleyball 8 Field Hockey 16

• 76 Penn State student-athletes (in 8 winter sports) earned Academic All-Big Ten

honors. Below is the number of selections from each team. Team Selections Men’s Swimming & Diving 6 Women’s Swimming & Diving 14 Men’s Basketball 3 Women’s Basketball 5 Men’s Gymnastics 12 Women’s Gymnastics 7 Wrestling 15 Men’s Ice Hockey 14

• 145 Penn State student-athletes (in 14 spring/at-large sports) earned Academic All-Big Ten honors. Below is the number of selections from each team.

Team Selections Softball 10 Women’s Lacrosse 17 Women’s Fencing 7 Men’s Golf 3 Women’s Tennis 9 Women’s Track (In/Out) 26 Men’s Volleyball 5 Baseball 9 Men’s Lacrosse 15 Men’s Fencing 8 Women’s Golf 6 Men’s Tennis 9 Men’s Track (In/Out) 10 Women’s Ice Hockey 11

Appendix H 09/12/17

7

• Overall, Penn State had 145 Academic All-Big Ten selections during the 2016-2017

academic year, which was a school record. Academic All-Big Ten selections are based on being a letter-winner and having a 3.0 GPA or higher.

• Through (23) years of full membership in the Big Ten Conference, 5,875 Penn State

student-athletes have been recognized as Academic All-Big Ten Conference selections.

**Highlights of Penn State's Academic Progress Rate (APR) for the Cohort of AY 2012-13 through AY 2015-16, Federal Graduation Rate (FGR) for 2009-10 and Graduation Success

Rates (GSR) for 2006-09

(See appended tables for further detail).

NOTES: The APR is based on four years of data, with the most current year's data added and the oldest year removed to create a four-year (multi-year) rolling average. The APR scores are a measure of eligibility and retention/graduation for each student-athlete receiving athletic aid during the identified academic semester/year. Retention is evaluated for each student-athlete with the following question in mind: Did that student-athlete return to the institution the next semester (students can earn 2 points after the fall semester and 2 points after the spring and summer semesters). Eligibility is evaluated using NCAA, conference (if applicable), and institutional standards. APR is calculated by dividing all possible points for all scholarship athletes into total points earned. The APR minimum academic standard to participate in postseason competition is 900. Beginning with 2012-13 NCAA championships, teams must earn a minimum 900 four-year APR or a 930 average over the most recent two years to be eligible to participate. For the 2014-15 NCAA championships, teams must earn a 930-four-year average APR or a 940 average over the most recent two years to participate in championships. In 2015-16 and beyond, teams must earn a four-year APR of 930 to compete in NCAA championships.

The Graduation Success Rate (GSR) is a percentage of scholarship student athletes graduating during a six-year window. Each cohort includes freshmen (fall and mid-year) plus incoming transfer students less any athletes who left the institution in good academic standing. The Federal Graduation Rate (FGR) measures the percentage of fall, first-time, full-time freshman who graduate within six years of entering their original four-year institution.

Note: This report has been prepared by Dr. Linda Caldwell, Faculty Athletics Representative until June 30, 2016, and Mr. Russell Mushinsky, Director of the Morgan Academic Center.

Appendix H 09/12/17

8

NCAA ACADEMIC PROGRESS RATE (APR) INFORMATION 2015-2016 (FOUR YEAR DATA) / RELEASED IN MAY 2017

PENN STATE RANKINGS

Penn State Intercollegiate Athletic Teams Multi-Year Team APR

APR Ranking w/in Big Ten Conference

APR All Division I Average

APR Public Institution Average

Baseball 988 7th (13) 973 970

Men’s Basketball 980 6th (14) 966 963

Men’s Cross Country 966 10th (12) 979 974

Men’s Fencing 977 1st (2) 972 970

Football 969 14th (14) 962 959

Men’s Golf 993 6th (14) 984 981

Men’s Gymnastics 994 5th (7) 990 989

Men’s Ice Hockey 983 3rd (6) 986 984

Men’s Lacrosse 981 4th (6) 979 976

Men’s Soccer 979 7th (9) 977 973

Men’s Swimming 982 7th (10) 979 978

Men’s Tennis 985 9th (12) 981 978

Men’s Track (Indoor & Outdoor) 966 11th (13) 971 966

Men’s Volleyball 988 2nd (2) 988 984

Wrestling 996 2nd (14) 973 972

Women’s Basketball 974 13th (14) 980 977

Women’s Cross Country 994 11th (14) 988 986

Women’s Fencing 982 2nd (3) 980 966

Field Hockey 994 3rd (9) 989 987

Women’s Golf 993 Tied for 7th (14) 990 989

Women’s Gymnastics 965 10th (10) 994 993

Women’s Ice Hockey 997 3rd (4) 992 989

Women’s Lacrosse 991 6th (7) 990 989

Women’s Soccer 996 4th (14) 986 984

Softball 986 12th (14) 983 981

Women’s Swimming 993 Tied for 6th (13) 991 990

Women’s Tennis 1000 Tied for 1st (14) 988 987

Women’s Track (Indoor & Outdoor) 992 Tied for 3rd (13) 982 979

Women’s Volleyball 1000 Tied for 1st (14) 987 985

Number in parentheses (#) = Number of schools in the Big Ten Conference who sponsor the sport.

Appendix H 09/12/17

9

GRADUATION SUCCESS RATE 2006-2009 COHORT

PENN STATE RANKINGS, BIG TEN CONFERENCE

PENN STATE VARSITY TEAMS

FEDERAL FOUR-YEAR

GRADUATION RATE

FEDERAL GRADUATION

RATE - DIVISION I

FOUR-YEAR AVERAGE

GRADUATION SUCCESS

RATE (GSR)

GRADUATION SUCCESS RATE

(GSR) - DIVISION I AVERAGE

GRADUATION SUCCESS RATE

(GSR) RANKING - (BIG TEN

CONFERENCE)

Baseball 71 50 89 79 6th (13)

Men's Basketball 82 47 100 76 1st (14)

Men's Fencing 60 62 60 90 2nd (2)

Football 66 61 80 74 5th (14)

Men's Golf 90 67 90 86 Tied for 8th (14)

Men's Gymnastics 78 86 82 92 7th (7)

Men's Lacrosse 80 70 93 87 1st (6)

Men's Soccer 64 59 100 83 Tied for 1st (9)

Men's Swimming & Diving 75 73 81 87 7th (10)

Men's Tennis 75 66 90 89 8th (12)

Men's Track & Cross Country 78 65 83 80 8th (13)

Men's Volleyball 71 76 71 87 2nd (2)

Wrestling 46 54 70 75 12th (14)

Women's Basketball 77 63 92 87 Tied for 6th (14)

Women's Fencing 75 82 83 94 Tied for 2nd (3)

Field Hockey 95 81 100 96 Tied for 1st (9)

Women's Golf 83 75 100 93 Tied for 1st (14)

Women's Gymnastics 92 86 100 96 Tied for 1st (10)

Women's Lacrosse 84 80 94 95 4th (6)

Women's Soccer 80 73 91 91 13th (14)

Softball 100 71 100 89 Tied for 1st (14)

Women's Swimming & Diving 88 79 92 93 Tied for 11th (13)

Women's Tennis 75 72 100 93 Tied for 1st (14)

Women's Track & Cross Country 93 72 94 88 Tied for 8th (14)

Women's Volleyball 73 71 91 92 Tied for 12th (14)

Numbers in parentheses (#) = Number of schools in the Big Ten Conference that sponsor the sport.

Appendix H 09/12/17

10

NCAA GRADUATION SUCCESS RATE (GSR) RANKINGS BIG TEN CONFERENCE

2006-2009 COHORT

STUDENT-ATHLETE GSR (4-Year Percentage)

MALE STUDENT-ATHLETE GSR

(4-Year Percentage)

FEMALE STUDENT-ATHLETE GSR

(4-Year Percentage)

Northwestern: 97 Northwestern: 96 Michigan: 97

Iowa: 90 Minnesota: 87 Northwestern: 97

Michigan: 90 Iowa: 85 Illinois: 96

Minnesota: 90 Penn State: 84 Penn State: 95

Penn State: 89 Michigan: 84 Indiana: 95

Indiana: 88 Nebraska: 84 Minnesota: 95

Nebraska: 88 Ohio State: 83 Rutgers: 95

Illinois: 87 Michigan State: 82 Iowa: 94

Michigan State: 87 Indiana: 81 Maryland: 94

Ohio State: 87 Illinois: 79 Nebraska: 93

Rutgers: 86 Purdue: 79 Purdue: 93

Wisconsin: 86 Wisconsin: 79 Wisconsin: 93

Maryland: 85 Maryland: 78 Michigan State: 92

Purdue: 84 Rutgers: 77 Ohio State: 92

OVERALL DIVISION I: 84% OVERALL DIVISION I: 79% OVERALL DIVISION I: 91%

Appendix H 09/12/17

11

NCAA GRADUATION SUCCESS RATE (GSR) RANKINGS BIG TEN CONFERENCE

2006-2009 COHORT

AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDENT-ATHLETE GSR

(4-Year Percentage)

AFRICAN AMERICAN MALE STUDENT-ATHLETE GSR

(4-Year Percentage)

AFRICAN AMERICAN FEMALE STUDENT-ATHLETE GSR

(4-Year Percentage)

Northwestern: 91 Northwestern: 97 Michigan: 100

Michigan: 84 Michigan: 81 Minnesota: 100

Indiana: 82 Indiana: 78 Wisconsin: 100

Maryland: 79 Penn State: 77 Illinois: 94

Nebraska: 79 Nebraska: 77 Rutgers: 93

Purdue: 78 Maryland: 76 Nebraska: 92

Penn State: 77 Purdue: 75 Indiana: 91

Rutgers: 77 Minnesota: 71 Ohio State: 91

Wisconsin: 75 Rutgers: 71 Purdue: 91

Ohio State: 74 Wisconsin: 65 Maryland: 89

Minnesota: 73 Iowa: 63 Iowa: 80

Illinois: 68 Ohio State: 63 Penn State: 79

Iowa: 65 Illinois: 61 Northwestern: 79

Michigan State: 61 Michigan State: 57 Michigan State: 70

OVERALL DIVISION I: 71% OVERALL DIVISION I: 66% OVERALL DIVISION I: 81%

Appendix H 09/12/17

12

NCAA GRADUATION RATE RANKINGS, BIG TEN CONFERENCE CLASS OF 2009-2010, FEDERAL GRADUATION RATES

ALL STUDENTS (2009-2010)

ALL STUDENTS (4-Year Average)

ALL STUDENT-ATHLETES (2009-2010)

ALL STUDENT-ATHLETES (4-Year Average)

Northwestern: 93 Northwestern: 93 Northwestern: 90 Northwestern: 91

Michigan: 90 Michigan: 90 Iowa: 82 Michigan: 80

Penn State: 86 Penn State: 86 Michigan: 81 Penn State: 78

Maryland: 86 Illinois: 84 Minnesota: 80 Iowa: 76

Illinois: 85 Maryland: 84 Penn State: 78 Illinois: 75

Wisconsin: 85 Wisconsin: 84 Illinois: 77 Minnesota: 75

Ohio State: 83 Ohio State: 83 Michigan State: 74 Ohio State: 73

Rutgers: 80 Rutgers: 80 Wisconsin: 74 Nebraska: 71

Indiana: 77 Michigan State: 78 Ohio State: 73 Rutgers: 71

Michigan State: 77 Indiana: 77 Rutgers: 72 Wisconsin: 71

Minnesota: 77 Minnesota: 76 Maryland: 70 Maryland: 70

Purdue: 76 Purdue: 73 Nebraska: 70 Michigan State: 70

Iowa: 72 Iowa: 70 Indiana: 67 Purdue: 70

Nebraska: 67 Nebraska: 66 Purdue: 62 Indiana: 66

OVERALL DIVISION I: 66%

OVERALL DIVISION I: 65% OVERALL DIVISION I: 66% OVERALL DIVISION I: 66%

Appendix H 09/12/17

13

NCAA GRADUATION RATE RANKINGS, BIG TEN CONFERENCE CLASS OF 2009-2010, FEDERAL GRADUATION RATES

ALL MALE STUDENT-ATHLETES

(2009-2010)

ALL MALE STUDENT-ATHLETES

(4-Year Average)

ALL FEMALE STUDENT-ATHLETES

(2009-2010)

ALL FEMALE STUDENT-ATHLETES

(4-Year Average)

Northwestern: 88 Northwestern: 90 Illinois: 91 Northwestern: 92

Iowa: 80 Michigan: 73 Northwestern: 91 Michigan: 90

Minnesota: 78 Penn State: 72 Penn State: 87 Illinois: 88

Michigan: 77 Iowa: 70 Michigan: 86 Penn State: 87

Michigan State: 74 Minnesota: 70 Rutgers: 86 Rutgers: 84

Penn State: 73 Nebraska: 66 Iowa: 84 Ohio State: 83

Wisconsin: 66 Illinois: 65 Ohio State: 84 Iowa: 82

Maryland: 65 Ohio State: 65 Minnesota: 83 Minnesota: 81

Illinois: 64 Maryland: 64 Wisconsin: 83 Wisconsin: 81

Ohio State: 64 Michigan State: 64 Nebraska: 80 Purdue: 79

Nebraska: 62 Purdue: 64 Purdue: 77 Nebraska: 78

Rutgers: 62 Wisconsin: 62 Maryland: 75 Michigan State: 77

Indiana: 60 Rutgers: 60 Michigan State: 75 Maryland: 76

Purdue: 52 Indiana: 59 Indiana: 74 Indiana: 75

OVERALL DIVISION I: 59%

OVERALL DIVISION I: 59% OVERALL DIVISION I: 74% OVERALL DIVISION I:

73%

Appendix H 09/12/17

14

NCAA GRADUATION RATE RANKINGS, BIG TEN CONFERENCE CLASS OF 2009-2010, FEDERAL GRADUATION RATES

ALL AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDENTS

(2009-2010)

ALL AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDENTS

(4-Year Average)

ALL AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDENT-ATHLETES

(2009-2010)

ALL AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDENT-ATHLETES

(4-Year Average)

Northwestern: 91 Northwestern: 91 Northwestern: 78 Northwestern: 87

Maryland: 81 Michigan: 79 Indiana: 74 Maryland: 69

Michigan: 76 Maryland: 77 Penn State: 71 Michigan: 68

Wisconsin: 74 Rutgers: 74 Michigan: 71 Nebraska: 63

Illinois: 73 Ohio State: 73 Iowa: 70 Penn State: 62

Ohio State: 73 Illinois: 72 Maryland: 70 Purdue: 62

Rutgers: 73 Penn State: 70 Rutgers: 68 Wisconsin: 60

Penn State: 72 Wisconsin: 69 Wisconsin: 67 Rutgers: 59

Indiana: 66 Indiana: 59 Michigan State: 64 Ohio State: 58

Purdue: 62 Michigan State: 58 Minnesota: 58 Indiana: 57

Iowa: 61 Purdue: 57 Illinois: 56 Illinois: 55

Michigan State: 59 Iowa: 55 Ohio State: 55 Minnesota: 54

Minnesota: 56 Minnesota: 55 Purdue: 40 Michigan State: 45

Nebraska: 42 Nebraska: 51 Nebraska: - Iowa: 42

OVERALL DIVISION I: 46%

OVERALL DIVISION I: 46% OVERALL DIVISION I: 57% OVERALL DIVISION I:

55%

Appendix H 09/12/17

15

2016 FEDERAL GRADUATION RATE/NCAA GRADUATION SUCCESS RATE (GSR) NATIONAL COMPARISON

INSTITUTION ALL

STUDENTS (2009-2010)

ALL STUDENTS 4-YEAR AVERAGE

(2006-2009)

ALL STUDENT-ATHLETES (2009-2010)

ALL STUDENT-ATHLETES

4-YEAR AVERAGE (2006-2009)

GRADUATION SUCCESS RATE

(GSR) 4-YEAR

AVERAGE (2006-2009)

Penn State 86 (13th) 86 (Tied for 12th) 78 (Tied for 8th) 78 (Tied for 5th) 89 (9th)

Baylor 70 73 61 67 87

Boston College 92 92 81 77 95

California 91 91 71 69 79

Duke 95 95 84 85 97

Florida 87 86 62 60 83

Florida State 79 78 64 65 87

North Carolina 88 89 62 68 82

Notre Dame 97 95 90 90 98

Oklahoma 66 67 58 60 85

Pittsburgh 82 81 70 68 84

Stanford 95 95 97 95 98

Syracuse 81 81 66 71 90

Temple 71 68 78 71 88

Texas 80 80 64 68 84

Texas A & M 80 80 73 70 81

UCLA 91 91 73 71 86

USC 92 91 73 70 83

Vanderbilt 92 92 83 83 93

Virginia 93 93 83 78 87

Virginia Tech 83 83 69 69 92

Wake Forest 88 87 83 78 92

West Virginia 57 57 64 66 83

DIVISION I AVERAGE 66 65 66 66 84

Appendix H 09/12/17

16

COMMITTEE ON INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS (2016-2017)

• Sandy Barbour • Eric Baumer • Terry Blakney • John Boehmer • Ken Brentner • Linda Caldwell • Julie Del Giorno • Morgan Goranson • Charmelle Green • Kane High • Lynn Holleran • Raymond Jones • Jonna Kulikowich, Chair • Craig Meyers • Russell Mushinsky • Mahdi Nasereddin • Kimberlyn Nelson, Vice Chair • John Nichols • Robert Pangborn • Thomas Poole • Robert Ricketts • Matthew Stolberg

Appendix I 9/12/17

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES

Revision of the Bylaws, Article I (Officers) Section 1

(Legislative)

Implementation: Upon Approval by the Senate

Background: Establishes that the Chair will assign Faculty Senate representatives to the Board of Trustee Committees; there will be a Faculty Senator seat for each of 6 Standing Committee of the Board of Trustees. Currently there is no procedure for these assignments. Bold indicates new text.

Article I Officers

Section 1

(a) The officers of the Senate shall be a Chair, a Chair-Elect, an Immediate Past Chair, and a Secretary.

(b) The Senate shall elect annually from among its elected faculty members a Chair-Elect and a Secretary from among members who are serving as elected faculty senators in the current Senate year. The Secretary shall be eligible for reelection, but shall serve no more than three consecutive one-year terms. The Chair-Elect, at the end of one year of service in that office, shall automatically succeed to the office of Chair. The Chair, at the end of one year of service in that office, shall automatically succeed to the office of Immediate Past Chair.

(c) If a senator’s term as representative of an academic voting unit expires while serving as Chair or Chair-Elect, and the senator is not reelected, that senator shall be permitted to succeed to the offices of Chair and/or Immediate Past Chair. While completing terms as Chair and Immediate Past Chair, the officer will have all the rights and privileges of a regular member of the Senate.

(d) When a vacancy occurs in the office of Immediate Past Chair, the elected members of the Senate Council shall elect a faculty member from among Past Chairs to complete the unexpired term. If a vacancy occurs in the office of Chair, the Chair-Elect will move immediately into the office, complete the unexpired term, and continue through a full term as Chair. When a vacancy occurs in the office of Chair-Elect, the elected Secretary of the University Faculty Senate shall, within no more than thirty days of notification of the vacancy, convene a meeting of the Nominating Committee for the purpose of presenting nominees to fill the unexpired term of the Chair-Elect. The Nominating Committee, acting under the procedures enumerated in the Standing Rules, Article I, Section 11 (c), shall present at least two nominees to fill the vacancy. These nominees shall be announced at the next meeting of the Senate. At this time, additional nominations may be made from the floor of the Senate. The Elections Commission shall then conduct a special election to fill the vacancy. The special election shall be conducted in the manner enumerated in the Standing Rules, Article I, Section 1 (b). The name of the new Chair-Elect shall be announced at the next Senate meeting. The new Chair-Elect shall complete the

Appendix I 9/12/17

unexpired term and succeed to the office of Chair. If a vacancy occurs in the office of Secretary, the elected members of the Senate Council shall elect a senator to complete the unexpired term.

(e) Utilizing all four Senate Officers and two additional Faculty Senators by Chair appointment, the Chair of the Senate shall determine appropriate committee assignments for Faculty Senators serving on the Board of Trustees, subject to continuing invitation by the Board of Trustees.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES

• Jonathan Abel • Mohamad Ansari • Dawn Blasko, Chair • Mark Casteel • Pamela Hufnagel • William Kelly, Vice Chair • Beth King • Richard Robinett • Keith Shapiro • James Strauss • Jane Sutton • Ann Taylor • Kent Vrana • Matthew Woessner

An Equal Opportunity University

101 Kern Graduate Building

University Park, PA 16802 Phone: 814-863-0221

MINUTES OF SENATE COUNCIL Tuesday, June 27, 2017 – 1:30 p.m.

102 Kern Graduate Building

Members Present: M. Ansari, , V. Brunsden, C. Eckhardt, , G. Grimes, N. Jones, L. Kitko, J. Nousek, J. Plummer, L. Posey, N. Rowland, E. Smithwick, J. Strauss, M. Strickland, A. Taylor, R. Troester, M. Woessner, D. Wolfe Absent: L. Backer, M. Berube, R. Jolly, J. Ozment, R. Shannon, R. Shugala, W. Wenner, Guests/Others: D. Blasko, B. Bowen, P. Brown, R. Engel, D. Hagen, M. Hanes, Z. Iqbal, R. Pangborn, F. Preciado, M. Whitehurst

CALL TO ORDER Chair Woessner called the meeting to order at 1:34 p.m. on Tuesday, June 27, 2017, in 102 Kern Graduate Building. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF April 4, 2017 The minutes of the April 4, 2017, meeting were approved on an Eckhardt/Rowland motion. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REMARKS Chair Woessner welcomed new members, incoming Executive Director Dawn Blasko, and returning members. Mohamad Ansari served as Parliamentarian in the absence of Larry Backer. He pointed out that today’s meeting is the final Senate Council meeting for Blannie Bowen and Dan Hagen. The following topics were discussed at the Faculty Advisory Committee meeting:

• How the Senate can support the University, both in efforts to combat excesses in Greek life and in managing the expectations for reform.

• Posthumous Degrees

• Former President Spanier's employment status with the University.

-2-

• Potential inconsistencies in faculty search practices throughout the Penn State system.

• The timetable for implementing the new FT titles, and communications to the faculty.

• The idea of a Senate-University Issue Initiation Form.

• Update Searches

Schreyer Honors College Dean College of Engineering Dean College of Earth and Mineral Sciences Dean College of Nursing Dean University Budget Office Associate Vice President for Affirmative Action Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs

• Update

Admissions Canvas

Chair Woessner announced that an FAC meeting and Senate Council meeting are scheduled for Tuesday, August 22, 2017. Senate officers will visit 11 campuses in the fall. A new senator workshop will be held on Monday September 11 at 4 p.m. Councilors should encourage new senators from their unit to attend.

Executive Vice President and Provost Jones announced Peggy Johnson has been appointed dean of the Schreyer Honors College. Justin Schwartz has been appointed dean of the College of Engineering, pending Board approval. Lee Kump has been appointed dean of the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, pending Board approval. Searches for dean of the College of Nursing and the University Budget Officer continue. The search for the associate Vice President for Affirmative Action (currently a vice provost position) is ongoing. An interim will be named soon. Candidates are being interviewed for the Associate Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs. The admissions numbers are strong. Adjustments are being made in LionPath, but it has now run one full annual cycle and is moving into maintenance mode. The launch of WorkLion was delayed until December, as announced previously. The university has responded formally to the recent Auditor General’s audit report on the university. The response is posted on the Auditor General’s web site. There was discussion about the key findings and interpretation of information in the report. Strategic planning implementation is going well. Vice Provost Blannie Bowen reported Middle States Commission on Higher Education has responded positively to the recent report on assessment from the university. He thanked all who were involved in the assessment efforts. He pointed out the revised HR21 has been posted. The conversion of fixed term faculty titles will be phased in as contracts expire. Vice President Madlyn Hanes announced Kelly Austin has been appointed Associate Vice President; a search to fill Kelly’s position as chancellor of Schuylkill Campus will begin soon.

-3-

Jackie Edmondson has been appointed chancellor of Greater Allegheny. Four more campuses have received funding for Invent Penn State. Rob Pangborn announced a search to fill the position vacated by Jackie Edmondson will be launched soon. Student numbers for fall are very good. The summer enrollment at non-UP campuses was the highest ever. In response to a question about summer enrollment of international students at UP, he stated that enrollment of international students at UP is stable; Penn State has not experienced the drop reported by many other institutions. Marcus Whitehurst thanked all who participated in the All In Conference. He is working on some ideas for first amendment challenges for the fall. Renata Engel discussed the World Campus’s strategic approach to retention. Enrollment continues to grow; a 9% increase is projected for the next year. Access and affordability remain a focus of World Campus. Senate officers had no comments. Executive Director Hagen thanked Council for their support during his time in the Senate and Senate office and wished everyone well. Councilors had no comments or questions. ACTION ITEMS: Revisions to the Arts and Architecture Constitution were approved on an Eckhardt/Rowland motion. The college will be notified of Council’s action. Revisions to the Hazelton Constitution were approved on a Grimes/Eckhardt motion. The campus will be notified of Council’s action. Revisions to the Worthington Scranton Constitution were approved on an Ansari/Rowland motion. The campus will be notified of Council’s action. A P-4 proposal from Ag Sciences to close the minor in Youth and Family Education was approved by Council on an Ansari/Eckhart motion. Vice President Rob Pangborn will be notified of Council action. DISCUSSION ITEMS: none REPORT OF THE GRADUATE COUNCIL Minutes from the April 12 and May 3, 2017, Graduate Council meeting are available on the Graduate School website. AGENDA ITEMS FOR September 12, 2017 A. FORENSIC BUSINESS

-4-

B. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

H. FORENSIC BUSINESS

I. LEGISLATIVE REPORTS SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES. Revisions to the Bylaws, Article III, Election to the Senate, Section 7. This report was placed on the Agenda on an Eckhardt/Ansari motion. J. ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS K. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS. Faculty Tenure Rates: 2016-17 Annual Report. This report was placed on the Agenda on an Ansari/Eckhardt motion. Fifteen minutes was allocated for presentation and discussion. The presenter is encouraged to highlight gender equity issues in the report. SENATE COUNCIL. Report on Spring 2017 College Visits. This report was placed on the Agenda on a Wolfe/Grimes motion. Ten minutes was allocated for presentation and discussion. APPROVAL OF AGENDA FOR SEPTEMBER 12, 2017. Approval of the Agenda will be considered at the August 22 meeting of Senate Council. NEW BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m. Next meeting: August 22, 2017 Dan Hagen, Executive Director

MINUTES OF SENATE COUNCIL

Tuesday, August 22, 2017 – 1:30 p.m. 102 Kern Graduate Building

Members Present: M. Ansari, M. Bérubé, C. Eckhardt, G. Grimes, R. Jolly, N. Jones, L. Kitko, J. Nousek, J. Ozment, L. Posey, N. Rowland, R. Shannon, J. Strauss, A. Taylor, R. Troester, W. Wenner, M. Woessner, D. Wolfe Guests/Others: K. Bieschke, D. Blasko, P. Brown, M. Hanes, R. Pangborn, R. Engel, M. Whitehurst. Absent: L. Backer, J. Plummer, E. Smithwick, V. Brundsen, M. Strickland

CALL TO ORDER Chair Woessner called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday, August 22, 2017, in 102 Kern Graduate Building. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF June 27, 2017 The minutes of the June 27, 2017, meeting were approved unanimously. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REMARKS Chair Woessner welcomed all new and continuing members and special guests. The following topics were discussed at the Faculty Advisory Committee meeting:

• Discuss the new organization and vision for the Office of the Vice Provost of Faculty Affairs.

• How will the 5 year Capital Plan, under consideration by the BOT, work within the

Education and General Budget structure?

• Discuss the application of HR 13 (faculty search procedures)

101 Kern Graduate Building University Park, PA 16802

Phone: 814-863-0221

• Get clarification on how the on criteria for fixed term promotion qualifications are established under HR-21."

• Update on the progress of standardizing title for Non-tenure-line Faculty across Units.

• Where does the University-Toll brothers situation lie in terms of the sale.

• How one might better convey the limitations the university faces and the options it has in relation to fraternity illegalities related to hazing, substance abuse and sexual misconduct. Are there options for alliances between universities in ousting a fraternity, for example? Is Greek life worth the toll it takes on its own?

• Smoke-Free Campus

• Greek Life

• Update Searches College of Nursing Dean University Budget Office Associate Vice President for Affirmative Action

• Update

Admissions Canvas LionPath WorkLion

Chair Woessner announced that an FAC meeting and Senate Council meeting are scheduled for Tuesday, October 3, 2017. Please submit topics to the Senate Officers, the Senate office or to FAC members by October 1st.

Murry Nelson, former Senate Chair and Professor Emeritus of Social Studies Education, has requested ten minutes to address the Senate regarding the potential removal of Rec Hall as a faculty/staff facility. Chair Woessner has approved the request.

Provost Jones gave an update on successful searches such as the appointment of Kathy Bieschke, as the Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs and University Budget officer Mary Lou Ortize. Searches continues for two Assistant Vice Provosts for Faculty Affairs. The search of a Dean of Nursing and the Search for Associate Vice President of Affirmative action continues. Work Day will be active on December 10, 2017. Those with Monthly payroll will see their first payroll through work day on January 31st. The restructuring of the Office of Planning and Assessment has brought responsibility for Accreditation to that office.

Angel is now turned off and Canvas is turned on. Course Leaf software has been selected as the software to create and maintain the on-line course and program bulletin for the university. Units are reviewing their practices for promotion in light of the new fixed term legislation. To help create fixed term promotion committees some units are promoting their best faculty directly to the rank of Professor of Teaching. Kathleen Bieschke introduced herself and discussed the restructuring of her office. Madlyn Hanes, Vice President of the Commonwealth Campuses and Executive Chancellor announced that Kelly Austin is now the Associate Vice President for Administration. Rob Pangborn, Vice President and Dean for Undergraduate Education. Enrollment is good; by design, there are 500 fewer paid accepts at University Park than last year. Referrals are up at the campuses. Students can now use tax returns from the previous year for FAFSA which makes it possible to send one letter with the complete financial aid package. Marcus Whitehurst, Vice Provost for Educational Equity announced a number of events, include Sunday 8-3-17, All In kickoff in the HUB. April 14th 50 year anniversary of Dr. Kings visit to campus. There was a brief discussion of President Barron’s letter to the community about Richard Spencer not being welcome to be a speaker at Penn State. Renata Engel, Interim Vice Provost for Online Education announced that summer course availability will be enhanced with some on-line courses offered at a lower tuition. The task force on Access and Affordability has focused on developing web-based modules for financial literacy and wellness. There is significant online growth in Graduate programs. Comments by the Senate Officers None Comments by the Executive Director Blasko None Comments by the Councilor Comments None ACTION ITEMS There are no Action items DISCUSSION ITEMS

Chair Woessner introduced Sandra Barbour, Athletic Director who gave an overview of Intercollegiate Athletics and their Strategic Plan. REPORT OF GRADUATE COUNCIL Graduate Council will have their first meeting of the year on Wednesday, September 13, 2017 SENATE AGENDA ITEMS FOR SEPTEMBER 12, 2017 FORENSIC BUSINESS UNFINISHED BUSINESS FORENSIC REPORTS LEGISLATIVE REPORTS

Committees and Rules - Revisions to Senate Standing Rules; Article III – Other Functions of the Senate, Section 11. This report was placed on the Agenda on a Jolly/Ozment motion. Council recommended that the second sentence be removed and the word ‘also’. The report was approved pending those changes by CC&R.

ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS INFORMATIONAL REPORTS

Faculty Rights and Responsibilities - Annual Report for 2016-2017. This report was placed on the Agenda on a Shannon/Grimes motion. Past FR&R Chair Blasko will stand for questions. Five minutes was allocated for discussion. Intercollegiate Athletics - Annual Report of Academic Eligibility and Athletic Scholarships for 2016-2017. This report was placed on the Agenda on a Rowland/Eckhardt motion. Ten minutes was allocated for presentation and discussion.

NEW BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT Chair Woessner thanked Council members for their attendance and participation. The meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m. Dawn G. Blasko Executive Director

Date: September 5, 2017 To: All Senators and Committee Members From: Dawn Blasko, Executive Director Following is the time and location of all Senate meetings September 11 and 12, 2017. Please notify the University Faculty Senate office and committee chair if you are unable to attend. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2017

6:30 p.m. Officers and Chairs Meeting –102 Kern Graduate Building

8:15 p.m. Commonwealth Caucus Meeting –102 Kern Graduate Building

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2017

8:00 a.m.

Intercollegiate Athletics – 613 Kern Building

8:30 a.m.

Committees and Rules – 201 Kern Graduate Building

Curricular Affairs – 102 Kern Graduate Building

Educational Equity and Campus Environment – 102D IST Building

Faculty Affairs – 202 Hammond Building

Faculty Benefits – 519 James M. Elliott Building

Intra-University Relations – 504 Agricultural Sciences and Industries Building

Libraries, Information Systems and Technology – 510A Paterno Library

Outreach – 114 Kern Building

Research, Scholarship, and Creative Activity – 502 Keller Building

University Planning – 324 Agricultural Sciences and Industries Building

101 Kern Graduate Building

University Park, PA 16802 Phone: 814-863-0221

9:00 a.m.

Admissions, Records, Scheduling, and Student Aid – 203 Shields Building

Global Programs – 412 Boucke Building

Student Life – 409H Keller Building

Undergraduate Education – 110C Chandlee Lab

11:00 a.m.

Student Senator Caucus – 114 Kern Building

11:15 a.m.

Commonwealth Caucus Meeting - Nittany Lion Inn- Ballroom AB

1:30 p.m.

University Faculty Senate – 112 Kern Graduate Building

Date: September 5, 2017 To: Commonwealth Caucus Senators (includes all elected campus senators) From: Galen Grimes and Nicholas Rowland, Caucus Co-chairs

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2017 – 8:15 PM 102 KERN BUILDING

Topic: "Issues in promotion and tenure on the Commonwealth Campuses"

Moderators: Galen Grimes and Nicholas Rowland

To join the evening caucus meeting by phone or video, Zoom connectivity is listed below:

Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android: https://psu.zoom.us/j/131291593 Or iPhone one-tap (US Toll): +16465588656,131291593# or +14086380968,131291593#

Or Telephone: Dial: +1 646 558 8656 (US Toll) or +1 408 638 0968 (US Toll) Meeting ID: 131 291 593

International numbers available: https://psu.zoom.us/zoomconference?m=pYjQga0sJuUfRRhmIn3j9N9bQdiBq3Rk

Or an H.323/SIP room system:

H.323: 162.255.36.11 (US East) Meeting ID: 131 291 593

SIP: 131291593@zoomcrc.com

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2017 – 11:15 AM

BALLROOM AB, NITTANY LION INN A buffet luncheon will be provided at 12:15 p.m.

Agenda

I. Call to Order II. Announcements III. Committee Reports IV. Other Items of Concern/New Business V. Adjournment and Lunch

101 Kern Graduate Building

University Park, PA 16802 Phone: 814-863-0221