Home Campus Directory | A-Z Index

R. Bacha, R. Bartell, L. Berkowitz, W. Cantor, M. Casteel, K. Cole, C.D. Creagh, H. Darling, J. Downing, S. Dwivedi, D. Folkers, T. Getz, S. Gill, F. Haag, A. Kara, A. Landis, D. Latzko, K. Magni, J. Nesbitt, D. Sarafian, A. Siddique, N. Sloboda, S. Stelly, K. Swalgin, K. Trout, E. Wenk, T. Moore, J. McCormick, J. Rodney, H. Gumke, S. Ruch, S. Christ, S. Schaffer, W. Vangreen, and M. Sutton.

  1. Minutes
    1. Meeting started at 12:07 p.m.
    2. Minutes from the November 12, 2009, meeting were approved
  2. Communications from administration, faculty, and committees
    1. Chancellor, Joel Rodney
      1. Penn State York is being encouraged by University Park (UP) to develop a program in Homeland Security.
    2. Director of Academic Affairs (DAA), Joe McCormick
      1. Status of faculty searches: see attached document.
      2. New online FAR update: see attached document. Discussion ensued. Some faculty said that the new online format is user-friendly.
      3. Those faculty who are interested in completing the Schreyer Institute’s Course of College Teaching should contact the DAA’s Office as soon as possible.
    3. University Senators
      1. Len Berkowitz attended John Romano’s meeting at UP. Romano spoke about the possible budget implications of losing federal stimulus dollars. Len Berkowitz said that Penn State had approximately 109,000 applications this year. Joel Rodney added that approximately 65,000 of those applications were for undergraduate programs. As of August 24, 2009, York had a total of 747 direct applications. This includes provisional, first year, and advanced standing students. Len Berkowitz reminded everyone to act quickly if they wish to secure Penn State’s long-term care insurance.
    4. Faculty Council Representative, Emily Wenk
      1. This committee is addressing the following issues: faculty salary inequities; reliability and validity of SRTE scores; and online SRTE administration (e.g., at Penn State Berks, the online SRTE scores appear to be lower than SRTE scores administered previously [using the paper-and-pencil version.])
    5. Faculty Council Representative, Emily Wenk
      1. No comments.
    6. Staff
      1. No comments.
    7. Student Government Representative
      1. No comments.
    8. Senate Chair Elect, David Latzko
      1. No comments.
    9. Senate Chair, Jennifer Nesbitt
      1. Jennifer Nesbitt asked Joel Rodney to appoint four voting members from the administrative staff. (Senate by-laws require this action.) Joel Rodney appointed Sharon Christ, Jane Emery, Holly Gumke, and Sue Ruch.
  3. Unfinished Business
    1. Continuation of Workload Discussion
      1. Faculty submitted two workload-related questions to Joe Downing. Downing removed all identifying information and forwarded faculty members’ (anonymous) questions to Joe McCormick and Joel Rodney.
      2. The first question was: “What happens when the DAA and the faculty member cannot come to an agreement regarding workload adjustment?” Joe McCormick wrote in his response to this question: “I have yet to encounter such a situation. Rarely have I been unable to arrive at an agreement with a member of this faculty that does not have best interest of all parties concerned in mind.” Joel Rodney added that faculty who wish to appeal the DAA’s decision should speak directly with the chancellor. However, the policy is unclear what happens if the faculty member and chancellor fail to resolve the matter. Len Berkowitz suggested a meeting with York’s Ombudsman to work out the problem before going to chancellor. Len Berkowitz thinks that the Faculty Rights and Responsibilities Committee may be an appropriate venue to appeal the chancellor’s decision. He also said that the University Senate is working on faculty workload issues as well.
      3. The second question posed to the DAA and chancellor was: “What is the administration doing to ensure equity among faculty in terms of course preparations per year? How are issues of student need, program growth, and full-time to part-time faculty ratios affected by this issue?” Joe McCormick responded: “Given the complexity of this question and the issues involved, I would say that as of Monday, November 9, 2009, the administration has done nothing “to ensure equity among faculty in terms of course preparations per year.” Will the administration take the sort of action implied in this question? Perhaps. The first order of business would be (a) to determine the actual number of course preparations, per year, for each full time member of the faculty and then (b) to establish the feasibility of bringing the number of course preparations per academic year, indicated by the guidelines, into sync with the day-to-day reality of delivering the extant curriculum with the full time faculty that we currently have on board. Clearly this is a multi-faceted issue that will necessitate further discussion over the course of the remainder of this academic year.”
        Joe McCormick reviewed all relevant guidelines/policies that each division has already developed. Joe McCormick created a summary table to report this information (see attached document.)
  4. New Business
    1. Smoke-Free Campus Motion
      1. MOTION: The Academic and Student Issues Committee supports the resolution of the Student Government Association (SGA)to make the campus smoke-free, with the exception of the parking lots.
      2. Noel Sloboda said that the committee supports the above motion. Sloboda and Matt Sutton (SGA) led the discussion that ensued. In short, there are details that need to be worked out, including: (1) enforcement; (2) where individuals on campus can smoke (for example, in any parking lot or only inside an automobile?); and (3) the lack of a system-wide policy across Penn State’s campuses.
    2. The campus senate passed the motion. (Two Campus Senate members opposed the motion.)Honors Subcommittee Report
      1. See attached document for details of Duke Sarafian’s presentation.
    3. 2008 Faculty/Staff Survey
      1. Twenty-nine individuals from the Yorl campus responded to Penn State’s system-wide survey. The problems associated with this small sample size withstanding, the data does reveal differences across how men and women on campus responded to certain questions. More detailed analysis of this data was advised.
  5. Adjournment
    1. Motion to adjourn was approved at 1:13 p.m.