THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY the University Faculty

101 Kern Graduate Building University Park, PA 16802 Phone: 814-863-0221

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

The University Faculty Senate

AGENDA

Tuesday, December 3, 2019 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 News at http://news.psu.edu/.

A. MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING

Minutes of the October 29, 2019 Meeting in The Senate Record 53:2

B. COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE

Senate Curriculum Report of November 12, 2019 Appendix A

2020-2021 Senate Calendar Appendix B

C. REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of November 12, 2019

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

SPECIAL INFORMATIONAL REPORTS Senate Committee on University Planning

Budgeting at Penn State 2019-2020 Appendix C [15 minutes allocated for presentation and discussion]

2019-2020 Strategic Plan Implementation Progress Report Appendix D [15 minutes allocated for presentation and discussion] G. FORENSIC BUSINESS

Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs

Senate Input on One Penn State 2025’s Goal of Curricular Coherence Appendix E [20 minutes allocated for presentation and discussion]

H. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None

I. LEGISLATIVE REPORTS

Senate Committee on Committees and Rules

Revisions to Senate Constitution, Article II – Membership, Section 5 Appendix F (Including World Campus Student Government Association)

Revisions to Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6(o) Committee on Appendix G University Planning (Sustainability)

Revisions to Senate Bylaws; Article I, Section 1: Officers Appendix H

J. ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS

Senate Committees on Faculty Affairs and Intra-University Relations

Revision to AC-25 Emeritus Policy (Formerly HR25) Appendix I

Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs

Revision to AC-76 “Faculty Rights and Responsibilities” Appendix J

Senate Committee on Libraries, Information Systems, and Technology

Email Policy Appendix K

K. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS

Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs

Mid-term report from the Task Force on Curricular Process Reform * Appendix L

Senate Committees on Faculty Benefits and Joint Committee on Insurance and Benefits

2018-2019 Annual Report on the Status of Benefit Changes Appendix M [15 minutes allocated for presentation and discussion]

Senate Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics

Annual Report of the Senate Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics, Appendix N Academic Year, 2018-2019 (Division 1 Athletics at University Park) *

Senate Committee on Libraries, Information Systems, and Technology

Software License Management * Appendix O

University IT Modernization Efforts Appendix P [15 minutes allocated for presentation and discussion]

* No presentation of reports marked with an asterisk.

L. NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS

None

M. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE UNIVERSITY

The next meeting of the University Faculty Senate will be held on Tuesday, January 28, 2020, 1:00 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 12/3/2019

101 Kern Graduate Building University Park, PA 16802 Phone: 814-863-0221

COMMUNICATION TO THE SENATE

DATE: November 13, 2019

TO: Nicholas Rowland, Chair, University Faculty Senate

FROM: Mary Beth Williams, Chair, Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs

The Senate Curriculum Report dated November 12, 2019 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, [email protected], on or before December 13, 2019.

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

Appendix B 12/03/19 2020-2021 Faculty Senate Calendar Senate Council Curriculum Meetings and Proposals Senate Council Curriculum Report Due Reports Due Publication Date Senate Meetings August 14, 2020 August 18, 2020 September 1, 2020 September 15, 2020 September 18, 2020 September 22, 2020 October 6, 2020 October 20, 2020 October 23, 2020 October 27, 2020 November 10, 2020 December 1, 2020 December 18, 2020 December 18, 2020 January 12, 2021 January 26, 2021 January 29, 2021 February 2, 2021 February 16, 2021 March 16, 2021 March 19, 2021 March 23, 2021 April 6, 2021 April 27, 2021 June 4, 2021 June 8, 2021 June 22, 2021*

*Tentative Appendix C 12/3/19 SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY PLANNING

Budgeting at Penn State 2019-2020

(Informational)

Dr. Nicholas Jones, Executive Vice President and Provost of the University, will present information about the 2019-20 University Operating Budget and the strategic budgeting approach.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY PLANNING 2019-2020 • O. Richard Bundy III • James Fairbank • David Gray • Nicholas Jones • David Lieb • John Liechty • Frantisek Marko, Vice Chair • Kathleen Mulder • Daniel Newhart • Mary Lou Ortiz • Lisa Posey, Chair • Gavin Robertson • Brian Saunders • Star Sharp • Alok Sinha • William Sitzabee • Charles Specht • Gary Thomas • Mary Vollero • Alex Wu • Robert Zambanini Appendix C 12/3/19

FY 2019-20 Budget and Strategic Budget Task Force Recommendations

Informational Report

Dr. Nicholas P. Jones Meeting of the University Faculty Senate Tuesday, December 3, 2019

OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND PROVOST

2019-20 Operating Budget

OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND PROVOST Appendix C 12/3/19

2019-20 Total Income: $6.8 Billion

OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND PROVOST

2019-20 Permanent Education and General Budget Changes

OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND PROVOST Appendix C 12/3/19

2019-20 Permanent Education and General Budget Summary

• Revenue Changes – PA resident undergraduate tuition increase = 0% – All other tuition increases = 1.95% – Change in total revenue = $35.4M • Expense Changes – Salary merit increase = 2.50% – Capital Plan funding = $9.467M operating budget debt service and $80M in direct capital funding from university contingency – No additions to facilities maintenance or student aid – Priorities and strategic investments = $9.0M – Cost savings = $35.528M, of which $9.3M are identified – Change in total expenses (including cost savings) = $35.4M

OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND PROVOST

History of State Appropriations: 2001-02 Through 2019-20

OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND PROVOST Appendix C 12/3/19

2019-20 State Appropriation: Requested vs. Approved

OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND PROVOST

Big 10: Ten- and Five-Year Changes in Undergraduate Tuition

OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND PROVOST Appendix C 12/3/19

2019-20 Undergraduate Tuition and Fee Changes

PA Residents Non‐PA Residents Proposed Tuition Increases and Rates per Semester % Inc $ Inc Rate % Inc $ Inc Rate Lower Division University Park 0.00% $0 $8,708 1.95% $330 $17,240 Altoona, Berks, Erie, Harrisburg 0.00% $0 $7,107 1.95% $229 $11,962 Abington 0.00% $0 $6,770 1.95% $217 $11,364 Brandywine, Hazleton, Lehigh Valley, Schuylkill, Scranton, York, World Campus 0.00% $0 $6,742 1.95% $215 $11,237 Beaver, DuBois, Fayette, Greater Allegheny, Mont Alto, New Kensington, Wilkes‐Barre 0.00% $0 $6,359 1.95% $204 $10,655 Shenango 0.00% $0 $6,237 1.95% $200 $10,449

Undergraduate Aggregate Increase 0.00% 1.95%

Student Fee changes: Student Initiated Fee: $4 at campuses, ‐$2 at UP (combination of former Activities and Facilities Fee) Information Technology Fee ‐ no increase (will be included in tuition in Spring 2020)

OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND PROVOST

2014-15 Through 2019-20 E&G Cost Savings and Revenue Changes

OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND PROVOST Appendix C 12/3/19

2014-15 Through 2019-20 E&G Cost Savings and Revenue Changes

OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND PROVOST

Strategic Budgeting Approach

OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND PROVOST Appendix C 12/3/19

Strategic Budget Task Force

• Convened in January 2019 to examine the key issues related to Penn State’s budget processes and make recommendations to allow multi-year budget planning of total university revenues and expenses

• Included broad representation from academic and administrative areas across the university

• Submitted nine recommendations for changes in the budget approach – Overall Budgeting Approach: Multi-year planning and budgeting all funds – Operating Budget: General and non-general funds – Capital Planning: Capital plan development and the intersection of operating and capital costs

OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND PROVOST

Implementation Structure

OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND PROVOST Appendix C 12/3/19

Executive Budget Committee

Established to oversee the work to operationalize the recommendations adopted from the Strategic Budget Task Force’s report

• Executive Sponsors: Nick Jones and David Gray • Committee Chair: Mary Lou Ortiz • Project Manager: Lindsey Droz, UBO • Organizational Change Manager: Jeremy Bean, F&B OCM • Communications Manager: To be hired • Business Analyst: To be hired • Administrative Support: Wayne Leone and Patty Tarbay, UBO

OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND PROVOST

Working Group Charges: Budgeting Approach

• Co-Chairs: – Andrew Reisinger, University Budget Office – Jeff Smith, Outreach and Online Education • Goal: Focus on specific approaches to budgeting that will be adopted by the University. • Recommendations to Address – Budgeting All Funds – Permanent and temporary budgets – Carry-forward funds – Fringe benefits

OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND PROVOST Appendix C 12/3/19

Working Group Charges: Multi-year Planning

• Co-Chairs: – Patti Cochrane, Commonwealth Campuses – Kurt Kissinger, Finance & Business • Goal: Focus on policies and processes to adopt a five-year budget planning process for the University and its many sub-units. • Recommendations to Address – Multi-year Budgeting – Non-general funds (auxiliary, gifts, endowment income, sponsored research)

OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND PROVOST

Working Group Charges: Salary and Job Classification

• Co-Chairs: – Greg Stoner, Human Resources – David Rose, Auxiliary & Business Services • Goal: Focus on human resource policy and process changes, such as standing vs. fixed-term positions, job classifications, etc. • Recommendations to Address – Salaries

OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND PROVOST Appendix C 12/3/19

Working Group Charges: Capital Planning

• Co-Chairs: – Sue Wiedemer, Office of the Corporate Controller – T. Mark Miller, Office of Physical Plant • Goal: Focus on aligning the capital planning approach to the new budgeting approach. • Recommendations to Address – Capital plan development – The intersection of operating and capital costs

OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND PROVOST

Thank You – Questions or Comments?

provost.psu.edu

OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND PROVOST Appendix D 12/3/19 SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY PLANNING

2019-2020 Strategic Plan Implementation Progress Report

(Informational)

Dr. Nicholas Jones, Executive Vice President and Provost of the University, will present a progress report on implementation of the University’s Strategic Plan.

Strategic Plan Implementation

Progress Report

Dr. Nicholas P. Jones Meeting of the University Faculty Senate Tuesday, December 3, 2019

OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND PROVOST

Strategic Plan Extended Through 2025

• November 2018: Board of Trustees Committee on Governance and Long-Range Planning approved extension of current strategic plan through 2025 • February 2019: Full Board of Trustees concurred with the committee’s decision to extend the current plan through 2025 • Impact of Decision: Extending strategic plan’s life span from 2020 to 2025 will enable initiatives to grow, engender more progress in many critical areas of work, capitalize on existing momentum, and support emerging signature initiatives

OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND PROVOST Appendix D 12/3/19

RFP Process and Initiative Funding

During the past two years (2017-18 and 2018-19), we have approved 43 initiatives for funding from 265 proposals submitted (about 16 percent).

• Cycle 1 (Fall 2017): 64 proposals received; 12 funded • Cycle 2 (Spring 2018): 75 proposals received; 10 funded • Cycle 3 (Fall 2018): 58 proposals received; 9 funded • Cycle 4 (Spring 2019): 68 proposals received; 12 funded

Through all four cycles combined, Penn State has awarded more than $9 million in seed grants.

OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND PROVOST

Funding Summary for Seed Grant Initiatives

Seed Grant Cycles 1-4

Transforming Education (11) $2,287,115 Grants Awarded: Stewarding Our Planet's Resources (9) $2,237,554 43 Enhancing Health (7) $1,623,529

Funds Awarded: Advancing the Arts and Humanities (7) $1,296,069 $9,194,150 Driving Digital Innovation (4) $839,754 Constituent Outreach and Engagement (2) $454,751 Organizational Processes (2) $342,512 Infrastructure and Support (1) $111,866 $0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 Funds Awarded

OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND PROVOST Appendix D 12/3/19

Summary of Seed Grant Cycles 1 and 2

Seed Awarded Amount Received External Funding Grants Additional Post-Award Awarded External Seed Grant Funds Funding Awarded: $4,660,039 Cycle 1 12 $ 2,394,547 7 $ 8,595,665 Awarded Additional December 2017 External Funding: Cycle 2 10 $ 2,265,492 4 $ 476,646 $9,072,311 Awarded May 2018 Totals 22 $ 4,660,039 11 $ 9,072,311

Of the 22 funded projects, 3 projects are complete, and 19 are ongoing.

OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND PROVOST

One Penn State 2025 Vision and Five Guiding Principles

• Vision: An ambitious rethinking of approaches to how we structure learning and operate to support student success • Five Guiding Principles o Provide a Seamless Student Experience o Achieve Curricular Coherence o Design Relevant and Responsive Programs o Engage Learners Throughout Their Lifetimes o Achieve the Highest Level of Efficiency of University Resources

OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND PROVOST Appendix D 12/3/19

New Consortium to Combat Opioid Crisis The Penn State Consortium to Combat Substance Abuse (CCSA)

• In Penn State’s Social Science Research Institute • Charged with developing and implementing programs, policies, and practices to prevent and treat addiction and mitigate its impacts • Draws on University-wide expertise • Hiring 12 new tenure-track faculty members over four years to support this signature initiative • Held inaugural conference in University Park in April 2019, bringing together researchers, policymakers, practitioners

OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND PROVOST

Additional Signature Initiatives

• Humanities Institute – Positions Penn State as national leader in the humanities – Coordinates network of humanities-focused research and outreach University-wide – Ideas will expand on innovations already underway at associated Centers and elsewhere • Center for Immersive Technologies – Focused on truly transformative technologies, such as virtual and augmented reality, 3D modeling – Investigating technologies poised to disrupt University operations, from education to research to outreach – Goal: Improve learning processes and transform society through digital innovation • Consortium for Integrated Energy Systems – A visionary proposal to build capacity in energy research and education – Involves College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, College of Engineering, and Institutes of Energy and the Environment – Three overarching energy themes: Generation, Utilization, Impact Mitigation

OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND PROVOST Appendix D 12/3/19

Moving Forward

• Ongoing engagement with the University Faculty Senate and Board of Trustees, including updates on plan implementation • Continued support, monitoring of 43 awarded seed grants – plan extension through 2025 enables initiatives to grow • Unit strategic plan reflection reports (due Nov. 1) under review • By end of this semester, units get: – Results of institutional strategic plan assessment by oversight committee and copy of iterated institutional strategic plan based on those results – Instructions on how to enter unit strategic plans into our new strategic planning system, Nuventive, including a template to standardize strategic plan format across Penn State • What’s Next? – Units asked to begin their planning processes in January 2020 – Draft plan entry into Nuventive by July 31, 2020 – Unit plan implementation begins in fall semester 2020 for all budget units

OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND PROVOST

Thank You – Questions or Comments?

Latest News on Strategic Plan Implementation https://strategicplan.psu.edu

List and Summaries of Funded Initiatives in All Four Cycles: https://strategicplan.psu.edu/funded-initiatives

OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND PROVOST Appendix E 12/03/19 SENATE COMMITTEE ON CURRICULAR AFFAIRS

Senate Input on One Penn State 2025’s Goal of Curricular Coherence

(Forensic)

The University Faculty Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs (SCCA) acknowledges that faculty expertise and resulting academic scholarship are essential to the development and delivery of outstanding curricula. As elected representatives of the faculty, University Faculty Senate has primary responsibility for the undergraduate curriculum, broadly defined as the courses required of our students to earn an undergraduate degree.1 In their role in the Senate, SCCA is responsible for the review, recommendation, and implementation of curriculum proposals. SCCA’s procedures are based on the committee’s understanding of Penn State’s unique structure and our policies guiding curricular development at the University, policies developed and refined over several decades in the Senate.

For the 2019-2020 academic year, SCCA is charged to consider improvements to curricular processes at Penn State. To this end, a Curricular Reform Task Force was formed to liaise with SCCA on future curricular development. SCCA also seeks general input from members of the Senate, and their home caucuses, on One Penn State 2025’s guiding principle of “achieving curricular coherence.”

Broad input from our university community, including faculty, students, staff, alumni, and external stakeholders is important for all discussions about curriculum. So that our committee can make progress on its charge, SCCA is first requesting Senate input and guidance on the following questions:

1. What does a coherent curriculum mean to you? 2. How is our curriculum broadly serving our undergraduate students? 3. What are faculty doing well to support faculty engagement in curriculum? 4. What are the barriers to faculty engagement in curricular processes? What are the limitations or barriers to curricular coherence? 5. What would help support faculty to fully engage in curricular design, review, innovation etc.?

SENATE COMMITTEE ON CURRICULAR AFFAIRS • Jeff Adams • Emmanuel Almonte • Michael Bartolacci, co-Vice Chair • Anne Behler • Justine Blanford • Laurie Breakey • David Callejo

1 University Faculty Senate has delegated responsibility for the graduate, medical, and law curricula to those schools, respectfully. Appendix E 12/03/19 • Lisa Chewning • Wendy Coduti • Melisa Czymoniewicz-Klippel • Peter Forster • Paula Hamaty • David Han • Harold Hayford, co-Vice Chair • Lawrence Kass • Kenneth Keiler • William Kenyon • Suzanna Linn • Timothy McNellis • Robert Melton • Janet Schulenberg • Andrea Sillner • Cynthia Simmons • Margaret Slattery • Karin Sprow Forté • Evelyn Thomchick • Alfred Warner • Suzanne Weinstein • Mary Beth Williams, Chair • Jeffrey Wong Appendix F 12/03/19 SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES

Revisions to Senate Constitution, Article II – Membership, Section 5 (Including World Campus Student Government Association)

(Legislative)

Implementation: Upon implementation by the President.

Rationale For the first time in its 21-year existence, World Campus students elected student government leadership to represent the voices of its thousands of on-line learners, an election that took place on-line the week of April 15, 2019. In order for the new government to advocate for the interests and concerns of World Campus’ more than 14,000 on-line learners, leadership needs access to a seat at the University Faculty Senate. The World Campus Student Government Association joins three other student-run government bodies at the University: the University Park Undergraduate Association, the Graduate and Professional Students Association, and the Council of Commonwealth Student Governments – all of which are welcome to the Senate.

Recommendations:

Please note that the following contains bold text for additions and strikeouts indicating deleted text. Deleted text is notated with [Delete] [End Delete]. Added text is notated with [Add] [End Add].

Recommended changes to the Senate Constitution Article II – Membership, Section 5 are as follows:

Section 5 (a) The following persons shall be ex officio members of the Senate: the President of the University; the Executive Vice President and Provost of the University; the Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School; the Chair of the Academic Leadership Council; the Vice President and Dean for Undergraduate Education; the University Registrar; the Executive Director, Division of Undergraduate Studies; and any elected member of the Faculty Advisory Committee who is not an elected faculty senator.

(b) The President may appoint other University personnel to membership in the Senate on an annual basis. The total number of appointed and ex officio members (not including any member of the Faculty Advisory Committee) shall not exceed a number equal to ten percent of the elected faculty senators.

(c) The full-time, degree-seeking students at the University shall be represented by student senators elected by their units and by three ex officio student senators from undergraduate student government organizations and one graduate and professional student government organization.

Appendix F 12/03/19 Student senators shall be allocated as follows:

(1) One undergraduate student from each of the colleges at University Park

(2) One student from each of the following locations or units:

Penn State Abington Penn State Altoona Penn State Berks Penn State Erie, The Behrend College Penn State Great Valley Penn State Harrisburg, The Capital College Dickinson Law Penn State Law Division of Undergraduate Studies Graduate School College of Medicine

(3) Two students from the University College

(4) [Delete] Three [End Delete] [Add] Four [End Add] leaders of student government organizations, as follows:

(i) One representative of the University Park Undergraduate Association (ii) One representative of the Council of Commonwealth Student Governments (iii) One representative of the Graduate and Professional Student Association. [Add](iv) One representative of the World Campus Student Government Association.*[End Add] Whenever comparable units are added to the University or created through reorganization, each new unit shall elect one student senator. The term of a student senator shall be one year.

(d) The retired faculty of the University shall be represented by two elected retired faculty senators.

Revised Policy/Policies (Clean Copy)

(b) The President may appoint other University personnel to membership in the Senate on an annual basis. The total number of appointed and ex officio members (not including any member Appendix F 12/03/19 of the Faculty Advisory Committee) shall not exceed a number equal to ten percent of the elected faculty senators.

Student senators shall be allocated as follows:

(1) One undergraduate student from each of the colleges at University Park

(2) One student from each of the following locations or units:

(3) Two students from the University College

(4) Three leaders of student government organizations, as follows:

(i) One representative of the University Park Undergraduate Association (ii) One representative of the Council of Commonwealth Student Governments (iii) One representative of the Graduate and Professional Student Association. (iv) One representative of the World Campus Student Government Association. * Whenever comparable units are added to the University or created through reorganization, each new unit shall elect one student senator. The term of a student senator shall be one year.

(d) The retired faculty of the University shall be represented by two elected retired faculty senators.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES • Johnathan Abel • Michael Berube • Renee Borromeo • Victor Brunsden, Chair Appendix F 12/03/19 • Beth King • Jeffrey Laman • Binh Le • Judith Ozment • Elizabeth Seymour • Keith Shapiro • Ann Taylor, Vice Chair • Rodney Troester • Kent Vrana

Appendix G 12/03/19 SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES

Revisions to Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6(o) Committee on University Planning (Sustainability)

(Legislative)

Implementation: Upon Approval by the Senate

Rationale As we face the existential threats of climate change, biodiversity loss, and interrupted biochemical flows, Penn State needs to intentionally determine its stance on these issues and how it will behave moving into this uncertain future. The Sustainability Institute is focused on the 17 Sustainable Development Goals that 192 countries have agreed upon as the blueprint to achieving a sustainable society. However, the Sustainability Institute cannot take this on by itself. As an institution with a budget larger than the GDP of 40 countries, Penn State has a very diverse set of assets, both physical and human. We have a portfolio that includes over 28 million square feet of building space across Pennsylvania, we employ over 50,000 employees, and serve approximately 100,000 students at any one time. As one indication of our environmental impact, the Penn State Greenhouse Gas emissions are approximately equivalent to those produced by all of the electricity consumption in residences in Centre County. To tackle the difficult but necessary task of eliminating our environmental impact, as well as achieving the economic and social sustainability goals encompassed in the Sustainable Development Goals, every unit across our diverse institution should take ownership for incorporating sustainability into their own operations and spheres of influence.

Recent news stories speak to the institution’s commitment to sustainability:

• On September 6, 2019, a Penn State News story titled “Penn State, Lightsource BP break ground on largest solar project in Pennsylvania,” tellingly subtitled “Project will provide 25% of University’s statewide electricity over 25 years while maximizing the impacts of sustainable solar farming and providing a living laboratory for students,” chronicled the groundbreaking for a utility-scale solar project in Franklin County. The solar project, which is a partnership between Penn State and Lightsource BP, “will provide 25% of Penn State’s purchased electricity over the next 25 years.”

• Not a month later, on October 4, 2019, Penn State was featured in National Public Radio in a news story “How Penn State Is Cutting Greenhouse Emissions In Half — And Saving Money.” At University Park alone, the news story reads:

“We’ve got 600 major buildings here, over 22 million square feet,” says Rob Cooper, Penn State's senior director of engineering and energy. “We have our own water system, our own wastewater plant.” Most buildings are heated by steam from two gas-burning plants, delivered through miles of underground pipes. … Penn State has calculated those emissions, year by year, over the past 25 years Appendix G 12/03/19 and laid them out on a graph. It tells a startling — and hopeful — story. Twenty years ago, the line was going up sharply. The university was growing, with more people and more buildings. It was burning more and more coal and gas — just like the rest of America. Then, in 2004, the line suddenly changed direction. It started falling like a rock rolling down a mountain. And it has been falling ever since, even though the university is growing.

It is clear that in managing Penn State’s physical footprint, energy needs, and plans for the future, there is substantial potential for the Senate to impact the institution’s sustainability goals. As a Faculty Senate Committee, the University Planning Committee, in particular, is in a position to encourage and facilitate the incorporation of sustainability across the university community, bring sustainability concerns to the university administration, and recommend changes to increase the sustainability of the University.

Recommendations:

Please note that the following contains bold text for additions and strikeouts indicating deleted text. Deleted text is notated with [Delete] [End Delete]. Added text is notated with [Add] [End Add].

Recommended changes to the Senate’s Standing Rules, Article II, section 6(o), are as follows:

1. Membership: (i) At least twelve elected faculty senators (ii) One undergraduate student senator (ii) One graduate student senator (iv) Executive Vice President/Provost of the University or representative (vi) Senior Vice President for Finance and Business/Treasurer* (vi) Senior Vice President for Development and Alumni Relations* [Add](vii) Chief Sustainability Officer or designee from the Sustainability Institute*[End Add]

2. Selection: By the Committee on Committees and Rules

3. Duties: The Committee on University Planning solely and in consultation with other committees, shall report on and/or propose action on matters of University planning that affect development and alumni relations, physical plant resources, and the academic and financial policies of the University. In accordance with the Constitutional advisory and consultative roles of the Senate, specific areas of responsibilities include but are not limited to: the allocation of resources among units and functions as they relate to educational policy; academic planning, strategic planning, development planning, and campus and physical planning including [Add]sustainability,[End Add] safety and security of persons, buildings, and other facilities. The committee shall be the primary Senate body advisory to the Office of the President, including the Senior Vice President for Finance and Business/Treasurer, Senior Vice President for Development and Alumni Relations, and the Executive Vice President/Provost, for all planning functions; and shall review those functions of the University that contribute to the planning Appendix G 12/03/19 processes. The committee shall participate in the development and review of the master plans for each of the University’s campuses and be consulted regularly in regards to proposed changes to those plans. In addition, this committee shall assist in creating an understanding of the University’s planning functions among all units within the University. The committee shall have access to all information necessary to perform their charge.

4. Mandated reports:

a. Annual Construction Report b. Biennial Space Allocation and Utilization Report c. Annual University Budget and Planning Report d. Biennial Development and Alumni Relations Report [Add]e. Triennial Sustainability Tracking, Assessment and Rating System Report [End Add]

The Committee on University Planning shall have the authority to approve its mandated Informational Reports for publication to the Senate Agenda. The committee shall send its Informational Reports to the Senate Council.

*nonvoting unless Article IV, Section 2 of the Bylaws applies.

Revised Policy (Clean Copy)

1. Membership: (i) At least twelve elected faculty senators (ii) One undergraduate student senator (ii) One graduate student senator (iv) Executive Vice President/Provost of the University or representative (vi) Senior Vice President for Finance and Business/Treasurer* (vi) Senior Vice President for Development and Alumni Relations* (vii) Chief Sustainability Officer or designee from the Sustainability Institute*.

2. Selection: By the Committee on Committees and Rules

3. Duties: The Committee on University Planning solely and in consultation with other committees, shall report on and/or propose action on matters of University planning that affect development and alumni relations, physical plant resources, and the academic and financial policies of the University. In accordance with the Constitutional advisory and consultative roles of the Senate, specific areas of responsibilities include but are not limited to: the allocation of resources among units and functions as they relate to educational policy; academic planning, strategic planning, development planning, and campus and physical planning including sustainability, safety and security of persons, buildings, and other facilities. The committee shall be the primary Senate body advisory to the Office of the President, including the Senior Vice Appendix G 12/03/19 President for Finance and Business/Treasurer, Senior Vice President for Development and Alumni Relations, and the Executive Vice President/Provost, for all planning functions; and shall review those functions of the University that contribute to the planning processes. The committee shall participate in the development and review of the master plans for each of the University’s campuses and be consulted regularly in regards to proposed changes to those plans. In addition, this committee shall assist in creating an understanding of the University’s planning functions among all units within the University. The committee shall have access to all information necessary to perform their charge.

4. Mandated reports:

a. Annual Construction Report b. Biennial Space Allocation and Utilization Report c. Annual University Budget and Planning Report d. Biennial Development and Alumni Relations Report e. Triennial Sustainability Tracking, Assessment and Rating System Report.

*nonvoting unless Article IV, Section 2 of the Bylaws applies.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES • Johnathan Abel • Michael Berube • Renee Borromeo • Victor Brunsden, Chair • Beth King • Jeffrey Laman • Binh Le • Judith Ozment • Nicholas Rowland • Elizabeth Seymour • Keith Shapiro • Ann Taylor, Vice Chair • Rodney Troester • Kent Vrana Appendix H 12/03/19 SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES

Revisions to Senate Bylaws; Article I, Section 1: Officers

(Legislative)

Implementation: Upon approval by the Senate (and development of procedures when applicable)

Introduction and Rationale The University Faculty Senate does most of its work in Standing and Special Committees. However, Senate Officers are unable to participate in regular committee meetings, vote on committee business, or participate in their caucuses during their terms of office because they are involved in leadership endeavors. The smaller the unit the more adversely affected the unit is when one (or more) of their senators is elected to be an Officer and, therefore, cannot sit on a Standing Committee and represent their college or campus.

In addition to diminishing unit representation on Standing Committees where Officers would otherwise be a voting participant, it also burdens the Standing Committees who need active members with expertise to fulfill their charges and produce their reports. For smaller units, this may mean their remaining senators can only serve on the two committees required by our standing rules, which leaves little or no room for those units to have additional voting and debate representation on other impactful committees. For the smallest units, this may mean their remaining senators cannot even serve on the three committees required by our standing rules. It also denies smaller units voices on the floor during plenary session discussion and debate because the role of the Officers is to represent the Senate as a whole rather than their unit specifically.

Consequently, the Committee on Committees and Rules recommends that units whose senators are officers should have the option to appoint elected alternate senators to serve in place of the officers and attend committee and plenary sessions with all the rights and responsibilities of all elected senators. In these instances, their terms will last only for the duration of the respective officers’ terms of office.

Recommendation

Recommendation 1: That Article I, Section 1 of the Senate Bylaws be and is hereby amended as follows:

Please note that the following contains bold text for additions. Additionally, added text is delimited with [Add] [End Add].

(1) 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) Elected Senators shall elect annually a Chair-Elect and a Secretary from among faculty members who are serving as elected faculty senators in the current Senate year. The Secretary Appendix H 12/03/19 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. [Add] The units from which the Chair-Elect and Secretary were elected may provide elected alternates to serve on the Standing Committees of the Senate and in the Plenary Sessions of the Senate. [End Add]

Revised Policy/Policies (Clean Copy)

(1) 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) Elected Senators shall elect annually a Chair-Elect and a Secretary from among faculty 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. The units from which the Chair-Elect and Secretary were elected may provide alternates to serve on the Standing Committees of the Senate and in the Plenary Sessions of the Senate.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES • Johnathan Abel • Michael Berube • Renee Borromeo • Victor Brunsden, Chair • Beth King • Jeffrey Laman • Binh Le • Judith Ozment • Nicholas Rowland • Elizabeth Seymour • Keith Shapiro • Anne Taylor, Vice Chair • Rodney Troester • Kent Vrana Appendix I 12/03/19 SENATE COMMITTEES ON FACULTY AFFAIRS AND INTRA-UNIVERSITY RELATIONS

Revision to AC-25 Emeritus Policy (Formerly HR25)

(Advisory/Consultative)

Implementation: Upon Approval by the President.

Rationale The committees acknowledge that “Emeritus Status is a privilege, not a right, and is given in recognition of sustained meritorious academic service to The Pennsylvania State University.” As such, AC-25, Emeritus Status (Formerly HR-25) includes a group of three eligibility requirements, the second of which stipulates that to be eligible for consideration of Emeritus Status, a faculty member must have held “any of the following ranks for at least five years prior to leaving the University:

• professor or associate professor • professor of practice • clinical professor or associate clinical professor • librarian or associate librarian • research professor or associate research professor • teaching professor or associate teaching professor • executive, associate dean, or director of an academic unit”

According to the history of the policy, AC-25 was most recently modified May 30, 2018 for “Editorial changes to update titles,” which are specified in the second eligibility requirement (above).

The relationship between title and rank has been the subject of considerable attention in the Senate of the past half-decade. Most recently, on April 23, 2019, Senate Committees on Faculty Affairs and Intra-University Relations delivered a report, “Revision to AC-21 “Definition of Academic Ranks,”” which clarified the relationship between title and rank. The report opened, stating:

The current version of AC-21 “Definition of Academic Ranks” (formerly HR-21) can be misconstrued with regard to the total number of ranks available to non- tenure-line faculty and the relationships between those ranks with regard to the role of terminal and non-terminal degrees.

Regardless of degree type, there are only three ranks and, thus, three titles available to non-tenure-line faculty.

Consider, for example, for “teaching faculty.” If the faculty member has a terminal degree, then the three titles available to them are:

Appendix I 12/03/19 • “Assistant Teaching Professor” at the first rank, • “Associate Teaching Professor” at the second rank, and • “Teaching Professor” at the third rank.

In contrast, if the faculty member has a non-terminal degree, then the three titles available to them are:

• “Lecturer” or “Instructor” at the first rank, • “Assistant Teaching Professor” at the second rank, and • “Associate Teaching Professor” at the third rank.

There is a similar relationship for research faculty. If the faculty member has a terminal degree, then the three titles available to them are:

• “Assistant Research Professor” at the first rank, • “Associate Research Professor” at the second rank, and • “Research Professor” at the third rank.

In contrast, if the faculty member has a non-terminal degree, then the three titles available to them are:

• “Researcher” at the first rank, • “Assistant Research Professor” at the second rank, and • “Associate Research Professor” at the third rank.

There is also a similar relationship for clinical faculty. If the faculty member has a terminal degree, then the three titles available to them are:

• “Assistant Clinical Professor” at the first rank, • “Associate Clinical Professor” at the second rank, and • “Clinical Professor” at the third rank.

In contrast, if the faculty member has a non-terminal degree, then the three titles available to them are:

• “Clinical Lecturer” at the first rank, • “Assistant Clinical Professor” at the second rank, and • “Associate Clinical Professor” at the third rank.

This nuanced understanding of the concept of rank is not currently reflected in AC-25. Upon close examination, readers of the policy will note that titles not ranks are included and the distinction between terminal and non-terminal degrees is, thusly, ignored. These omissions, intentionally or otherwise, exclude individuals that the policy should not, in particular, faculty members without terminal degrees that were hired at the second rank or who were hired at the first rank and have achieved promotion. Appendix I 12/03/19

The title “Assistant [Teaching, Research, Clinical] Professor” is currently not included as eligible for or worthy of consideration for emeritus status. This is because of the relationship between title and rank. All other eligibility requirements satisfied, the committees acknowledge that an “Assistant [Teaching, Research, Clinical] Professor” with a terminal degree has not achieved the second rank (either by hire or promotion), and, therefore, is not eligible for the privilege that is Emeritus Status. In contrast, all other eligibility requirements satisfied, the committees would be remiss not to acknowledge that an “Assistant [Teaching, Research, Clinical] Professor” with a non-terminal degree has achieved the second rank (either by hire or promotion), and, therefore, is eligible for the privilege that is Emeritus Status.

This is a concern because all of the other titles identified in AC-25 are all at the second rank or above. It is only fair to include and not exclude faculty members at the second rank with non-terminal degrees. In a closing remark, formerly ineligible faculty, considered ineligible based on previous title-based eligibility requirements, should be eligible based on revisions to the policy rather than the policy that they retired under, if this report should be supported by the Senate.

Recommendation Recommended changes to AC-25 Emeritus Policy are as follows.

Please note that the following contains bold text for additions and strikeouts indicating deleted text. Deleted text is notated with [Delete] [End Delete]. Added text is notated with [Add] [End Add].

… any of the following ranks for at least five years prior to leaving the University:

• professor or associate professor • professor of practice • clinical professor[Add],[End Add][Delete]or[End Delete] associate clinical professor[Add],[End Add][Add] or assistant clinical professor with a non- terminal degree[End Add] • librarian or associate librarian • research professor[Add],[End Add][Delete]or[End Delete] associate research professor[Add],[End Add][Add] or assistant research professor with a non- terminal degree[End Add] • teaching professor[Add],[End Add][Delete]or[End Delete] associate teaching professor[Add],[End Add][Add] or assistant teaching professor with a non- terminal degree[End Add] • executive, associate dean, or director of an academic unit”

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS • Renee Bishop-Pierce, Chair • Richard Brazier • Julia Bryan Appendix I 12/03/19

• William Butler • Gary Calore • Alison Chetlen • Ed Evans • Beth Farmer • David Fusco • Julie Gallagher • Leland Glenna • Terrence Guay • Kathryn Jablokow • Rosemary Jolly • Matthew Jordan • Zuleima Karpyn • Lisa Kitko • Angela Linse • Jonathan Mathews • Rajen Mookerjee • John Nousek • Eric Novotny • Laura Pauley • Rosemarie Petrilla, Vice Chair • Nicholas Pyeatt • Richard Robinett • Sue Rutherford Siegel • Amit Sharma • Stephen Snyder • Emily Strohacker • Bonj Szczygiel

SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTRA-UNIVERSITY RELATIONS • Elizabeth Boyer • Anthony Buccitelli • Madyln Hanes • Robert Hoffman • Maureen Jones, Chair • Davis Kahl • Kelly Karpa • Kevin Koudela • Janelle Larson • Xin Liu • Clifford Maurer • Kevin McDade • Karyn McKinney, Vice Chair • Mari Pierce • Paul Riccomini Appendix I 12/03/19 • Martin Skladany • Rajarajan Subramanian • Paul Thompson • Michael Tyworth • Aiyana Southorland • Samuel Bilotta Appendix J 12/03/19 SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS

Revision to AC-76 “Faculty Rights and Responsibilities”

(Advisory/Consultative)

Implementation: Upon Approval by the President

Rationale The current version of AC-76 “Faculty Rights and Responsibilities” (formerly HR-76) does not specify procedures for situations involving the Executive Vice President and Provost. These revisions provide policy whereby if the Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities determines that the Executive Vice President and Provost is the subject of the complaint, the Executive Vice President and Provost will recuse themselves and their role will be assumed by the Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs.

Recommendation The committee recommends that AC-76 “Faculty Rights and Responsibilities” be modified in the following way:

Please note that additions appear in bold.

AC76 Faculty Rights and Responsibilities (Formerly HR76) Policy Status: Active Policy Steward: Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs

POLICY'S INITIAL DATE: September 1, 1973

THIS VERSION EFFECTIVE: May 31, 2011 • Purpose • Scope • Conciliation • Ombudsperson • Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities • .... Establishment of the Committee • .... Operation of the Committee • .... The Role of a Hearing Board • .... Decision of the Executive Vice President and Provost • Guidelines for Implementation • .... The Senate Report • .... Definition of Faculty • .... Issues for Review: Limitations • .... Application of Policy to Other Professionals Appendix J 12/03/19 • .... Obligations of the Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities • .... Consultation Between Review Bodies • .... Notification of the Executive Vice President and Provost's Decision

PURPOSE:

This policy defines the procedures to be followed when issues involving faculty rights and responsibilities have not been successfully resolved through the normal channels of administrative responsibility and procedure.

Disputes are best addressed through direct discussions among the parties to the disputes. When such direct discussions fail to resolve the dispute, the parties should avail themselves of the Ombudsperson process. All Penn State faculty and administrators are strongly urged to make use of the unit or University ombudsperson as appropriate. Only when matters cannot be resolved through that process, should the formal procedures described in this policy be used.

SCOPE:

A. In these procedures the term "faculty member" refers to members of the University faculty as defined in the University Faculty Senate Constitution (Article II, Section 1) plus any other University employees in academic positions which lead to permanent tenure. (This definition is subject to the clarifications of the Guidelines for Implementation section of this policy.)

B. The Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities established by the procedures may review petitions from faculty members and administrators involving: 1. Any situation in which a faculty member asserts that he or she has suffered a substantial injustice resulting from a violation of: a) academic freedom; b) procedural fairness; or c) professional ethics. The Committee does not review cases of alleged discrimination or of sexual harassment as defined in AD41 (see section F below). However, claims that involve discrimination or harassment plus one of the three areas named above will be investigated simultaneously by the Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities and by the Office of Affirmative Action. Each body will examine the part(s) of the claim within its respective area of competence, will share evidence where appropriate, and will inform the other of its findings. (See "Consultation Between Review Bodies" below).

2. Any situation in which an administrator seeks a Committee judgment as to appropriate action toward a faculty member who, in his or her judgment, may be failing to meet his or her responsibilities.

C. The Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities will normally consider only petitions which involve, as a direct party, faculty members as defined above. Exceptions to this restriction apply to University academic employees (a University academic employee is a person whose duties include instructional, research or creative responsibilities) as follows:

NOTE: This definition of academic employee excludes graduate assistants. Appendix J 12/03/19

1. Dismissal. Any University academic employee may make use of these procedures upon receipt of notice of dismissal. A dismissal is a termination before the end of the period of appointment.

2. Non-reappointment. Any University academic employee who can demonstrate that considerations violative of academic freedom significantly contributed to a decision of non-reappointment may make use of these procedures.

3. Other matters. The Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities may, as it deems appropriate, review petitions or appeals of any University academic employee in matters beyond the above limitation. In such cases, the Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities will review the petition according to their usual procedures, but formal hearings will not be held except in rare cases where there are compelling reasons for them.

D. Cases of substantive dispute involving the termination of tenured appointment for cause or for reasons of financial exigency or program elimination or revision, or the release of a faculty member during the provisional appointment period with less advance notice than that specified in University policy, shall be considered at a hearing by the Standing Joint Committee on Tenure under the "Committee Procedural Rules" described in the Policy AC70 Dismissal of Tenured or Tenure-Eligible Faculty Members.

E. Cases involving questions of ethics related to research and other scholarly activities shall be referred to the Vice President for Research (See RA10).

F. Cases involving a claim of discrimination or sexual harassment will be referred to the Office of Affirmative Action (See B1 above). Should a multipart petition be filed that claims discrimination or harassment and also one of the grievances for which the Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities and/or the Standing Joint Committee on Tenure is responsible, each reviewing body will conduct an independent investigation on those claim(s) within its area of competence. (See "Consultation Between Review Bodies" below.) [Add] G. If the Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities determines that the Executive Vice President and Provost is the subject of the complaint, the role of the Executive President and Provost will be assumed by the Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs. In such cases, all references in this policy to the Executive Vice President and Provost will be understood to refer instead to the Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs. [End Add]

CONCILIATION:

Colleges and campuses should have a person or group to serve in the role of ombudsperson. The objective is to enhance communication and clarify possible misunderstandings in situations which involve potential disputes, to advise faculty members and administrators as to appropriate courses of action, and to help settle matters before they become hardened into serious disputes. The individual or group should be selected by procedures approved by a majority of the faculty in the unit. Appendix J 12/03/19

OMBUDSPERSON:

Selection and Responsibilities of Ombudspersons

A. An Ombudsperson shall be appointed in each of the colleges, campuses and academic units. For those not associated with an academic unit, or in cases where the appropriate ombudsperson may be in doubt, the following policy shall be applied:

1. Where appropriate, the ombudsperson will be from the same academic unit to which the employee is most closely associated. For example, research associates in the Applied Research Laboratory will have access to the ombudsperson for the College of Engineering.

2. In cases where there is disagreement or doubt as to the appropriate ombudsperson, the Executive Vice President and Provost shall make the determination.

3. In cases where the ombudsperson is in doubt as to his or her jurisdiction, he or she shall ask the Executive Vice President and Provost for a determination.

B. The Dean, Chancellor, or other appropriate campus official and the faculty shall jointly develop selection procedures for the ombudsperson. Normally, the role of ombudsperson will be performed by a single person, with a designated alternate. In unusual circumstances, a group of not more than three persons may be selected. No one who is a member of the Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities shall serve as ombudsperson.

C. Functions for the ombudsperson are:

1. Clarification of misunderstandings;

2. Advising faculty and administrators as to appropriate courses of action;

3. Assisting in the informal resolution of differences;

4. Assuring that appropriate department, college and/or campus procedures are exhausted before referring the case to higher levels;

5. Informing the Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost and appropriate college or campus officials if a matter cannot be resolved at the lower level and the case is to be referred to the Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities.

6. The ombudsperson shall not:

• Hold hearings; • Exceed the role of conciliator and advisor; Appendix J 12/03/19 • Substitute his or her judgment for that of appropriate administrative and/or faculty bodies; • Serve as counsel for either party to a complaint before the Hearing Board.

COMMITTEE ON FACULTY RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES:

Establishment of the Committee

The Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities will have nine members elected by the Senate: six faculty members and three members of the Academic Leadership Council. Two of the faculty members shall be from academic voting units other than those at University Park. The Chair will be chosen by the committee from the elected faculty members and will serve a one- year term as chair.

Six faculty members and three deans will be elected as alternates for three-year terms. Two of the faculty members shall be from academic voting units other than those at University Park. The term of office for members and alternates will be three years commencing on July 1. The terms will be staggered to provide for continuity.

The Senate Committee on Committees and Rules will present a list of nominees to fill vacancies and expiring terms on the Committee at the next to last meeting of the Senate each academic year. Additional nominations may be made from the floor at that time.

Election of Committee members and alternates will be by secret ballot. No member of this Committee may serve concurrently on the Standing Joint Committee on Tenure and/or the University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee.

Operation of the Committee

The Committee Chair will be elected by the Committee from among its elected faculty members. The term of office will be for one year -- from July 1 through June 30.

A quorum of the Committee will be a majority of those remaining after disqualifications on a matter at issue, subject to a minimum of three members. A majority of those voting on a matter at issue will be faculty.

Upon receiving a petition, the Committee will make a preliminary determination as to the extent of its review of the matter. The Committee will reserve the right not to take up a complaint that it judges unsubstantial or without merit or where it appears that other remedies should be sought before coming to the Committee. The Committee may decide to perform an Informal Review or to establish a Hearing Board. As a result of an Informal Review, the Committee may decide to reject a petition, to use its good offices in an attempt to bring about a satisfactory settlement, to bring recommendations to the Committee for a Full Committee Review and vote, and/or to establish a Hearing Board. In a Full Committee Review, the Committee shall reach its Appendix J 12/03/19 conclusions and recommendations by a majority vote of those present and voting (subject to the conditions set forth in the preceding paragraph).

A Hearing Board will be established only when the issue is clearly serious, a prima facie case has been established by the complaining party, and the Committee finds that reasonable efforts have already been made to solve the problem, and that no alternative way of attempting to settle the matter is appropriate in the circumstances.

The burden of proof in establishing a prima facie case will be on the complaining party. The Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities should attempt to settle matters brought to it as quickly as possible without sacrificing fairness to all parties. Only in extraordinary circumstances should there be a time span longer than 90 days between the receipt of a complaint by the Committee and a decision as to whether there will be a formal hearing.

The Role of a Hearing Board

For a particular case, a Hearing Board, consisting of two faculty members and one Dean to be chosen from the Committee by methods of its own selection, will be established to hear the case. The Hearing Board will elect its chairman from among its members. A member will remove himself or herself from a case if he or she deems himself or herself disqualified by reason of bias or interest. Each party will have a maximum of two challenges without stated cause. If disqualifications and challenges make it impossible to set up a Board with 3 members from the Committee or elected alternates, the Senate Council will select substitutes for a particular case. Each party will have a maximum of two challenges of such substitutes without stated cause. If a hearing is scheduled, notice will be served with a specific statement of the complaint at least 20 days prior to the hearing. The party complained against may waive a hearing or may respond to the complaint in writing at any time before the hearing.

Hearings before a Hearing Board will not be public. Publicity and public statements about the case by either the faculty member or administrative officers will be avoided until the proceedings have been completed. The Hearing Board may have present at the hearing such assistance as it deems necessary.

During the proceedings the parties will be entitled to have an advisor and counsel of their own choice. The Hearing Board will not be bound by strict rules of legal evidence and may admit any evidence of probative value in determining the issues involved. Every possible effort will be made to obtain the most reliable evidence available and to avoid excessively legalistic procedures. A verbatim record of the hearings will be taken and both parties will receive a copy of that record.

The Hearing Board will grant adjournments to enable either party to investigate evidence as to which a valid claim of surprise is made.

Appendix J 12/03/19 The parties will be afforded an opportunity to obtain necessary witnesses and documentary or other evidence. The University administration will make reasonable efforts to cooperate with the Hearing Board in securing witnesses and making available documentary and other evidence. Parties will have the right to confront and cross-examine all witnesses.

The Hearing Board's findings of fact and conclusions will be based solely on the hearing record. The Hearing Board shall reach its conclusions by majority vote.

Decision of the Executive Vice President and Provost

Conclusions and recommendations from the Committee or a Hearing Board shall be submitted to the Executive Vice President and Provost of the University through the Chair of the Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities. The Executive Vice President and Provost shall notify the Chair of the decision that has been reached.

In the event that the Executive Vice President and Provost's decision is not in accord with the conclusions of the Committee or the Hearing Board, the reasons for that decision shall be specified to the Chair of the Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities who will inform the Committee and the parties directly involved. (See also Notification of the Executive Vice President and Provost's Decision in the "Guidelines for Implementation" section of this policy.) At the first regular Senate meeting of each academic year, the Chair of the Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities will present a brief general report of the Committee's activities.

GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION:

The Senate Report

A report "Procedures on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities" was adopted by the University Faculty Senate on May 8, 1973. These procedures became effective as University policy as of September 1, 1973. The Preamble of the Senate report is not included as part of this policy, but should be used for guidance on such matters as the meaning of academic freedom, professional ethics, and procedural fairness. University policy begins with Section II -Scope of the Senate report.

Definition of Faculty

The term faculty member shall include the Senate's definition of its electorate plus all research equivalent ranks as specified in the Policy Manual AC21. The definition is as follows: All persons who are not candidates for degrees at Penn State, who hold full-time academic appointments, and who fall into one of the following categories -- those holding professorial, research or librarian titles, those who are full-time instructors or assistant librarians, and those other full-time academic employees who are members of the Graduate Faculty, but who do not fall into either of the above categories.

Issues for Review: Limitations

Appendix J 12/03/19 Section B under Scope defines the kinds of issues which the Committee may review. The Committee shall not consider the substantive academic judgment aspects of such matters as promotion, tenure, compensation, and evaluation of performance. In such matters as these, only procedural fairness may be reviewed.

Section C. 4. under Scope describes other matters that may come under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities.

Application of Policy to Other Professionals

Some persons who are not included in the definition of faculty members should also have access to these procedures for those matters specified in Scope, Section C. This provision shall apply to professional employees involved in teaching, research or creative activities who are attached to a research unit or an academic college. This would also include the following categories: part-time (with at least a six-month appointment), visiting, clinical, and adjunct academic personnel.

Obligations of the Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities

The preliminary determination referred to in the third paragraph of Operation of the Committee must include a Committee judgment that the appropriate department, college and/or other unit administrative procedures have been exhausted prior to the point the Committee decides whether or not to review the petition further. In making such a judgment, the Committee shall consult with the ombudsperson in the appropriate college or campus.

In the event the Committee decides to informally review the case or hold a hearing, the petitioner, the Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost, the appropriate college and/or campus official, and the college or campus ombudsperson shall be notified immediately.

Consultation Between Review Bodies

Should a multipart petition be filed that contains claims for which both the Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities, and/or the Office of Affirmative Action is responsible, each reviewing body will conduct an independent investigation on the claim(s) within its area of competence. Each reviewing body will consult with the other(s) during the process, will share evidence where appropriate, and will inform the other(s) of its findings.

Notification of the Executive Vice President and Provost's Decision

After receiving the conclusions and recommendations on a case from a Hearing Board, the Executive Vice President and Provost of the University shall notify the parties directly involved, appropriate University administrative officers, and the Chair of the Faculty Rights and Responsibilities Committee as to his or her decision. The Chair shall be responsible for informing the Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities.

UPDATES: Appendix J 12/03/19 6/10/10 - Minor editorial adjustment to Operation of the Committee section. 10/20/09 - The Senate Committee on Committees and Rules voted to change the term of ombudsman to ombudsperson.

AC76 Faculty Rights and Responsibilities (Formerly HR76) Policy Status: Active Policy Steward: Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs

POLICY'S INITIAL DATE: September 1, 1973

THIS VERSION EFFECTIVE: May 31, 2011 • Purpose • Scope • Conciliation • Ombudsperson • Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities • .... Establishment of the Committee • .... Operation of the Committee • .... The Role of a Hearing Board • .... Decision of the Executive Vice President and Provost • Guidelines for Implementation • .... The Senate Report • .... Definition of Faculty • .... Issues for Review: Limitations • .... Application of Policy to Other Professionals • .... Obligations of the Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities • .... Consultation Between Review Bodies • .... Notification of the Executive Vice President and Provost's Decision

PURPOSE:

SCOPE: Appendix J 12/03/19

B. The Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities established by the procedures may review petitions from faculty members and administrators involving:

1. Any situation in which a faculty member asserts that he or she has suffered a substantial injustice resulting from a violation of: a) academic freedom; b) procedural fairness; or c) professional ethics. The Committee does not review cases of alleged discrimination or of sexual harassment as defined in AD41 (see section F below). However, claims that involve discrimination or harassment plus one of the three areas named above will be investigated simultaneously by the Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities and by the Office of Affirmative Action. Each body will examine the part(s) of the claim within its respective area of competence, will share evidence where appropriate, and will inform the other of its findings. (See "Consultation Between Review Bodies" below). 2. Any situation in which an administrator seeks a Committee judgment as to appropriate action toward a faculty member who, in his or her judgment, may be failing to meet his or her responsibilities.

NOTE: This definition of academic employee excludes graduate assistants.

1. Dismissal. Any University academic employee may make use of these procedures upon receipt of notice of dismissal. A dismissal is a termination before the end of the period of appointment.

Appendix J 12/03/19 D. Cases of substantive dispute involving the termination of tenured appointment for cause or for reasons of financial exigency or program elimination or revision, or the release of a faculty member during the provisional appointment period with less advance notice than that specified in University policy, shall be considered at a hearing by the Standing Joint Committee on Tenure under the "Committee Procedural Rules" described in the Policy AC70 Dismissal of Tenured or Tenure-Eligible Faculty Members.

E. Cases involving questions of ethics related to research and other scholarly activities shall be referred to the Vice President for Research (See RA10).

G. If the Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities determines that the Executive Vice President and Provost is the subject of the complaint, the role of the Executive President and Provost will be assumed by the Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs. In such cases, all references in this policy to the Executive Vice President and Provost will be understood to refer instead to the Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs.

CONCILIATION:

OMBUDSPERSON:

Selection and Responsibilities of Ombudspersons

Appendix J 12/03/19 2. In cases where there is disagreement or doubt as to the appropriate ombudsperson, the Executive Vice President and Provost shall make the determination.

3. In cases where the ombudsperson is in doubt as to his or her jurisdiction, he or she shall ask the Executive Vice President and Provost for a determination.

C. Functions for the ombudsperson are:

1. Clarification of misunderstandings;

2. Advising faculty and administrators as to appropriate courses of action;

3. Assisting in the informal resolution of differences;

4. Assuring that appropriate department, college and/or campus procedures are exhausted before referring the case to higher levels;

6. The ombudsperson shall not: • Hold hearings; • Exceed the role of conciliator and advisor; • Substitute his or her judgment for that of appropriate administrative and/or faculty bodies; • Serve as counsel for either party to a complaint before the Hearing Board.

COMMITTEE ON FACULTY RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES:

Establishment of the Committee

Six faculty members and three deans will be elected as alternates for three-year terms. Two of the faculty members shall be from academic voting units other than those at University Park. Appendix J 12/03/19 The term of office for members and alternates will be three years commencing on July 1. The terms will be staggered to provide for continuity.

Operation of the Committee

The Committee Chair will be elected by the Committee from among its elected faculty members. The term of office will be for one year -- from July 1 through June 30.

Upon receiving a petition, the Committee will make a preliminary determination as to the extent of its review of the matter. The Committee will reserve the right not to take up a complaint that it judges unsubstantial or without merit or where it appears that other remedies should be sought before coming to the Committee. The Committee may decide to perform an Informal Review or to establish a Hearing Board. As a result of an Informal Review, the Committee may decide to reject a petition, to use its good offices in an attempt to bring about a satisfactory settlement, to bring recommendations to the Committee for a Full Committee Review and vote, and/or to establish a Hearing Board. In a Full Committee Review, the Committee shall reach its conclusions and recommendations by a majority vote of those present and voting (subject to the conditions set forth in the preceding paragraph).

The Role of a Hearing Board

For a particular case, a Hearing Board, consisting of two faculty members and one Dean to be chosen from the Committee by methods of its own selection, will be established to hear the case. Appendix J 12/03/19 The Hearing Board will elect its chairman from among its members. A member will remove himself or herself from a case if he or she deems himself or herself disqualified by reason of bias or interest. Each party will have a maximum of two challenges without stated cause. If disqualifications and challenges make it impossible to set up a Board with 3 members from the Committee or elected alternates, the Senate Council will select substitutes for a particular case. Each party will have a maximum of two challenges of such substitutes without stated cause. If a hearing is scheduled, notice will be served with a specific statement of the complaint at least 20 days prior to the hearing. The party complained against may waive a hearing or may respond to the complaint in writing at any time before the hearing.

During the proceedings the parties will be entitled to have an advisor and counsel of their own choice. The Hearing Board will not be bound by strict rules of legal evidence, and may admit any evidence of probative value in determining the issues involved. Every possible effort will be made to obtain the most reliable evidence available and to avoid excessively legalistic procedures.

A verbatim record of the hearings will be taken and both parties will receive a copy of that record.

The Hearing Board will grant adjournments to enable either party to investigate evidence as to which a valid claim of surprise is made. The parties will be afforded an opportunity to obtain necessary witnesses and documentary or other evidence. The University administration will make reasonable efforts to cooperate with the Hearing Board in securing witnesses and making available documentary and other evidence. Parties will have the right to confront and cross-examine all witnesses.

The Hearing Board's findings of fact and conclusions will be based solely on the hearing record. The Hearing Board shall reach its conclusions by majority vote.

Decision of the Executive Vice President and Provost

In the event that the Executive Vice President and Provost's decision is not in accord with the conclusions of the Committee or the Hearing Board, the reasons for that decision shall be specified to the Chair of the Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities who will inform the Committee and the parties directly involved. (See also Notification of the Executive Vice President and Provost's Decision in the "Guidelines for Implementation" section of this policy.) Appendix J 12/03/19 At the first regular Senate meeting of each academic year, the Chair of the Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities will present a brief general report of the Committee's activities.

GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION:

The Senate Report

Definition of Faculty

Issues for Review: Limitations Section B under Scope defines the kinds of issues which the Committee may review. The Committee shall not consider the substantive academic judgment aspects of such matters as promotion, tenure, compensation, and evaluation of performance. In such matters as these, only procedural fairness may be reviewed.

Section C. 4. under Scope describes other matters that may come under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities.

Application of Policy to Other Professionals

Obligations of the Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities

The preliminary determination referred to in the third paragraph of Operation of the Committee must include a Committee judgment that the appropriate department, college and/or other unit administrative procedures have been exhausted prior to the point the Committee decides whether Appendix J 12/03/19 or not to review the petition further. In making such a judgment, the Committee shall consult with the ombudsperson in the appropriate college or campus.

Consultation Between Review Bodies

Notification of the Executive Vice President and Provost's Decision

UPDATES: 6/10/10 - Minor editorial adjustment to Operation of the Committee section. 10/20/09 - The Senate Committee on Committees and Rules voted to change the term of ombudsman to ombudsperson.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS • Kathy Bieschke • Renée Bishop Pierce, Chair • Richard Brazier • Julia Bryan • William Butler • Gary Calore • Alison Chetlen • Ed Evans • Beth Farmer • David Fusco • Julie Gallagher • Leland Glenna • Terrence Guay • Kathryn Jablokow • Rosemary Jolly Appendix J 12/03/19 • Matthew Jordan • Lisa Kitko • Angela Linse • Jonathan Mathews • Rajen Mookerjee • John Nousek • Eric Novotny • Laura Pauley • Rosemarie Petrilla, Vice Chair • Nicholas Pyeatt • Richard Robinett • Sue Rutherford Siegel • Amit Sharma • Stephen Snyder • Emily Strohacker • Bonj Szczygiel Appendix K 12/03/19 SENATE COMMITTEE ON LIBRARIES, INFORMATION SYSTEMS, AND TECHNOLOGY

Email Policy

(Advisory/Consultative)

Implementation: Upon Approval by the President

Introduction and Rationale Penn State Information Technology (IT), the Office of General Counsel, and the Office of Information Security presented to LIST a new policy to establish the eligibility, expectation, and parameters for University provided email. The policy applies to all email accounts maintained, provided, and offered by the University. This policy applies to all psu.edu email addresses and sub-domains.

Additionally, the policy outlines faculty, staff, and student access to email when they retire, leave Penn State, graduate, or otherwise depart from the university. Faculty retirees will keep access to their [email protected] email accounts in perpetuity. There will be an annual process for continued access to the email account. The process will be clearly communicated to retired faculty. Students on leave of absence retain access to email as long as they are on leave. Retired staff will be eligible for an @mylion.psu.edu address. Alumni will be moved to an @weare.psu.edu email address.

Use of University email must comply with all University Policies, including, but not limited to, University Policy AD96, Acceptable Use of University Information Resources, and guidelines, standards of ethical conduct and safety, and must comply with applicable state and federal laws.

The policy has been to the LIST committee several times for comment and input from the committee members. The changes that are reflected in this version of the policy reflect the input and recommendations from the LIST committee.

Recommendation The LIST committee recommends that the university implement the proposed Email Policy as written in this report.

Appendix K 12/03/19

General University Administrative Reference Utility Policy Manual Policy XX –University Provided Email Policy - as of 10/24/2019

Contents

Overview Purpose Scope Policy I. Faculty and Staff II. Students III. Information Classification Restrictions IV. Ownership of Penn State Email Accounts V. Passwords VI. Authorized Users of University Provided Email Accounts and Termination of Service VII. Release of Penn State Email of Current and Former Faculty, Staff, and Students VIII. Acceptable Use of Penn State Email Accounts IX. Penn State Email Subject to Legal Holds X. Penn State Email Forwarding

Exceptions and Exemptions Policy Violations For Further Information Cross References

OVERVIEW:

Electronic mail (email) is a primary means of communication both within The Pennsylvania State University (“Penn State” or the “University”) and externally. Email provides a quick and efficient means to conduct business, but, if not used properly, it carries the risk of harm to the University and members of its community.

PURPOSE:

To establish the eligibility, expectation, and parameters for University provided email.

Appendix K 12/03/19 SCOPE:

This Policy applies to all email accounts maintained, provided, and offered by the University. This Policy applies to all psu.edu email addresses and sub-domains.

This Policy does not apply to email accounts maintained, provided, and offered by Penn State Health and the Pennsylvania College of Technology.

POLICY:

I. Faculty and Staff

Penn State provides email accounts to all current faculty and staff to conduct University business.

II. Students

Penn State provides email accounts to all currently enrolled students at the University. In addition to the Penn State policies applicable to all members of the Penn State community, student use of email is subject to the University’s Student Code of Conduct.

III. Information Classification Restrictions

While the University will make every attempt to keep email messages secure, it is important to note that email generally is not considered a secure form of communication. As a result, Penn State email accounts should not be used for the transmission and/or storage of information classified as “Restricted” or “High.” Refer to University Policy, AD95, Information Assurance and IT Security and its corresponding Security Standards and to http://security.psu.edu for best practices on transmitting and/or storing information classified as Restricted or High.

IV. Ownership of Penn State Email Accounts

Penn State owns all University provided email accounts. Subject to underlying intellectual property rights under applicable laws and University policies, the University also owns the information transmitted or stored using Penn State email accounts.

V. Passwords

To help safeguard your identity and your privacy, do not share your University assigned email account with, or give your password to, anyone. Refer to University Policy AD95, Information Assurance and IT Security and its corresponding Access, Authentication, and Authorization Standard for best practices on password management.

Appendix K 12/03/19 VI. Authorized Users of University Provided Email Accounts and Termination of Services

The following outlines the authorized users of email at the University, as well as termination of services provisions:

Authorized Users Termination of Penn State Email Service Students - Alumni Access to Penn State email ends 90 days after graduation, then transitions to a commercial, non-fee email provider for alumni - @weare.psu.edu Students Access to Penn State email ends 90 days after separation from the University and may be terminated immediately for misconduct or in the best interest of the University. Students on official leave of absence maintain access to email, calendar, and productivity tools. Access to Penn State email ends 365 days after a student is placed on academic suspension. Faculty – Emeritus Eligible for access to Penn State email dependent upon account usage. and Retired Accounts inactive beyond 365 days may be terminated. Faculty (Formerly Access to Penn State email ends 365 days after separation from the University. Full-time, Adjunct, Access may be terminated immediately for misconduct or in the best interests and/or Affiliate) of Penn State. Access will be terminated immediately in the case of termination for cause. Staff - Retired Eligible for access to Penn State email through @mylion.psu.edu dependent upon account usage. Accounts inactive beyond 365 days may be terminated. Staff (Formerly Access to Penn State email ends 14 days after last day at the University. Full-time and/or Access may be terminated immediately for misconduct or in the best interests Part-time) of the University. Access will be terminated immediately in the case of termination for cause. Sponsored Affiliates Access to Penn State email ends on the last day of their designation. (e.g., Visiting Scholars)

Once email services have been terminated, Penn State will no longer provide and/or restore email, unless required by law to do so.

VII. Release of Penn State Email of Current and Former Faculty, Staff, and Students

To ensure compliance with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (University Policy AD11) and in consideration of general privacy principles (University Policy AD53), the University will not release – or otherwise provide - the email of any current or former student, faculty, or staff member to a third-party, including, but not limited to, family members of any student, faculty, or staff member, absent a subpoena, search warrant, or court order or where such email could be required or authorized by law to be produced or lawfully requested for any other reason, including disclosure to a government agency.

Appendix K 12/03/19 VIII. Acceptable Use of Penn State Email Accounts

Members of the University community must comply with all University Policies, including, but not limited to, University Policy AD 96, Acceptable Use of University Information Resources, and guidelines, standard of ethical conduct and safety, and must comply with applicable state and federal laws, when using Penn State email accounts to conduct University business.

IX. Penn State Email Subject to Legal Holds

To the extent Penn State email is relevant to, or the subject of, a legal hold, please note that the deletion and/or destruction of all such email will be suspended immediately upon notice that an investigation or litigation is pending, imminent, or reasonably foreseeable. The suspension will be tailored to cover only those records, documents, drafts, and copies relevant to the investigation or litigation, as determined by the Office of General Counsel.

A legal hold remains in effect until it is released in writing by the Office of General Counsel. After the University community receives written notice of the lifting of a legal hold, all records, including email, relevant to the legal hold shall return to their normal handling procedures and retention schedules. Please refer to University Policy AD35, University Archives and Records Management for further information.

X. Penn State Email Forwarding

Penn State email is an official means of communication for the University. Faculty, staff, and students are required to conduct Penn State business from their University assigned email address containing the psu.edu domain.

Faculty, staff, and students, however, may forward Penn State email to other email providers. Active members of the University community assigned Penn State email address are still responsible for having access to all Penn State related emails and may be subject to discipline if not responsive.

EXCEPTIONS AND EXEMPTIONS

Exceptions to, or exemptions from, any provision of this Policy must be approved by the Vice President for IT and Chief Information Officer at [email protected].

POLICY VIOLATIONS

Any Penn State department or unit found to operate in violation of this Policy may be held accountable for remediation costs associated with a resulting information security incident Appendix K 12/03/19 or other regulatory non-compliance penalties, including, but not limited to, financial penalties, legal fees, and other costs.

Violations of this Policy by faculty, staff, or students may be subject to disciplinary action, to specifically include, suspension or termination of email privileges.

FURTHER INFORMATION

For questions, additional details, or to request change to this Policy, please contact the Vice President for IT and Chief Information Officer at [email protected].

CROSS REFERENCES:

AC25 Emeritus Status

AD11 University Policy on Confidentiality of Student Records

AD35 University Archives and Records Management

AD53 Privacy Policy

AD95 Information Assurance and IT Security

AD96 Acceptable Use of University Information Resources

SENATE COMMITTEE ON LIBRARIES, INFORMATION SYSTEMS & TECHNOLOGY • Fred Aebli • Mary Beth Clark • Jon Crutchfield • Barbara Dewey • Roger Egolf, Chair • Karen Estlund • Dace Freivalds • Galen Grimes • Grace Hageman • Mihoko Hosoi • Greg Madden • John Messner, Vice Chair Appendix K 12/03/19 • Jacqueline Reid-Walsh • Francesca Ruggiero • Jennifer Sparrow • Cristine Truica • Morgan Yelverton • Donald Welch • Alex Zhao

Appendix L 12/03/19 SENATE COMMITTEE ON CURRICULAR AFFAIRS

Mid-term report from the Task Force on Curricular Process Reform

(Informational)

Background and state of current work

The Curricular Process Reform Task Force was charged on May 7, 2019 (see attached charge letter). The charge for the Task Force is to review the curriculum process, identify areas of reform in the curriculum process, recommend short-term and long-term changes to the curricular process, provide rationale for areas of reform, and explore the concept of curricular coherence and the state of the curriculum at Penn State. During the Task Force’s charge meeting, the group decided that the work would take two closely related tacks, one focused on defining, in general terms, the curriculum at Penn State and the other reviewing and recommending changes to the curriculum process.

To pursue our charge, we decided to meet twice monthly to discuss these two broad threads. The members are deeply committed to facilitating the maintenance and continued evolution of a robust curriculum and have engaged in a thoughtful conversation ranging over wide, though interrelated, topics. We have been addressing key questions such as the nature and function of curriculum, the role of faculty, our responsibility to students, and how Penn State’s curriculum reflects one university geographically distributed. We have begun to describe the characteristics of a high-quality curriculum and a functional curricular process to guide our recommendations. And, grounded in our emerging consensus on these broader issues, we are clarifying our understanding of the problems with the current state and developing proposed actions to address these.

Plan moving forward

As a Task Force, we are charged to create internal reports to the Standing Committee on Curricular Affairs. Initially we were charged to create two separate reports, one focused on the curricular process and the second on the nature of the curriculum. Early in our discussions we decided that these two charges are intertwined, and we are in the process of drafting one report that will be submitted to Curricular Affairs by the end of the fall semester.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON CURRICULAR AFFAIRS • Jeff Adams • Emmanuel Almonte • Michael Bartolacci, co-Vice Chair • Anne Behler • Justine Blanford • Laurie Breakey Appendix L 12/03/19 • David Callejo • Lisa Chewning • Wendy Coduti • Melisa Czymoniewicz-Klippel • Peter Forster • Paula Hamaty • David Han • Harold Hayford, co-Vice Chair • Lawrence Kass • Kenneth Keiler • William Kenyon • Suzanna Linn • Timothy McNellis • Robert Melton • Janet Schulenberg • Andrea Sillner • Cynthia Simmons • Margaret Slattery • Karin Sprow Forté • Evelyn Thomchick • Alfred Warner • Suzanne Weinstein • Mary Beth Williams, Chair • Jeffrey Wong

Task Force on Curricular Process Reform • Jeff Adams, Co-Chair • Dawn Blasko • Penny Carlson • Kadi Corter • Michele Duffey • Denise Solomon • Janet Schulenberg • Beth Seymour, Co-Chair • Rod Troester • Mary Beth Williams

Appendix L 12/03/19

101 Kern Graduate Building University Park, PA 16802 Phone: 814-863-0221

Date: May 7, 2019

To: Jeff Adams, [email protected] (Co-Chair) Beth Seymour, [email protected] (Co-Chair) Dawn Blasko [email protected] Penny Carlson, [email protected] Kadi Corter, [email protected] Michele Duffey, [email protected] Lorraine Dowler, [email protected] Denise Solomon, [email protected] Janet Schulenberg, [email protected] Rod Troester, [email protected] Mary Beth Williams, [email protected]

From: Nicholas Rowland, Chair University Faculty Senate

Subject: Charge “Curricular Process Reform” Task Force

The second principle element of the 2025 vision is to “achieve curricular coherence.” Because faculty have the ultimate authority over the curriculum, the University Faculty Senate is uniquely positioned to contribute to this essential aspect of One Penn State 2025.

An achievable, concrete first step toward enhancing Penn State’s faculty-lead curriculum is to reform curricular process, which will facilitate enhancements to curricular clarity, coherence, and variety in time. In addition, once opportunities for improving curricular process are identified, for example, in terms of efficiency or continuity, a secondary opportunity for exploration is curricular coherence in general and the state of the curriculum itself.

To facilitate this goal, a Task Force is charged to draft an internal University Faculty Senate report that:

• Provides a rationale for reforming curricular process; • Identifies opportunities for process reform, for example, in terms of efficiency or continuity; • Recommends both short-term and long-term changes to curricular process.

The report shall be delivered to the University Faculty Senate Standing Committee on Curricular Affairs.

Appendix L 12/03/19 A secondary objective of the group, once the first report is complete, provided that this is consistent with the prerogatives of the Co-Chairs, is exploration of curricular coherence in general and the state of the curriculum itself. To facilitate this goal, the Task Force may draft another internal University Faculty Senate report that:

• Provides a rationale for reforming our curriculum; • Identifies opportunities for curricular reform, for example, in terms of clarity or variety; • Recommends both short-term and long-term changes to our curriculum.

The report shall also be delivered to the University Faculty Senate Standing Committee on Curricular Affairs. In sum, the Special Committee is expected to deliver:

• An internal report on Curricular Process Reform before the September 2019 Plenary Meeting of the University Faculty Senate; and • An internal report on Curriculum Reform, provided the first report is successfully delivered, before the December 2019 Plenary Meeting of the University Faculty Senate.

Conceivably, the reports could be bundled and delivered together as a single report; however, the only stipulation is that ideas for general curricular reform do not predate or take precedent over ideas for curricular process reform.

Please indicate your willingness to serve on this Task Force to Patti Hoppes ([email protected]) before May 21, 2019. The University Faculty Senate will be in touch with you about scheduling future meetings.

On behalf of the University Faculty Senate, I would like to thank you for your kind consideration of this request.

CC: Renata Engel Yvonne Gaudelius Appendix M 12/03/19 SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY BENEFITS AND JOINT COMMITTEE ON INSURANCE AND BENEFITS

2018-2019 Annual Report on the Status of Benefit Changes

(Informational)

This report is a summary of Penn State benefit changes, changes under consideration, and issues discussed, for which the Joint Committee on Insurance and Benefits provided consultation with Penn State administration between September 2018 and May 2019. Changes to Penn State Benefits Health Plan Benefit changes in 2019 The PPO and PPO Savings plans remained the two health plan choices in 2019 with Aetna as the third- party administrator (TPA) and CVS Caremark as the Pharmacy Benefit Manager (PBM). The premium structure, tiering for the PPO plan deductibles, and seed money for the PPO Savings plan remained the same as 2018. The only plan design change was the coinsurance structure for lab services. Beginning in January 2019, if employees use Quest/Lab Corp for non-urgent labs, the coinsurance remains at 10%, after deductible. Employees and their family members will pay more in coinsurance (after deductible is met) if they do not use Quest Diagnostics/Lab Corp. If another Aetna in-network lab other than Quest/Lab Corp is used the co-insurance goes up to 30% (after deductible) and if an out-of- network lab is used, the co-insurance will go up to 50% (after deductible). There are more than 115 Quest labs and more than 65 LabCorp labs within Pennsylvania.

The Vision Third Party Administrator changed to EyeMed for 1/1/19. The change included a higher allowance for frames with 100% of the frame’s cost being covered at Target Optical and Sears Optical (Freedom Pass).

Also offered were two dependent child life insurance options offered through Unum; a $5,000 policy at a premium of $1.20 per month; or, $10,000 policy at a premium of $2.40 per month.

Technical Service PPO and PPO Savings plan percentages of salary contributions for 2019 are defined per the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. In order to provide context for the plan design changes since 2016, the following chart was created, with changes noted in green.

PPO Plan Provision Description 2016 2017 2018-2020

Deductible (Individual/Family) Band 1: Less than or equal to $45,000 $250 / $500 $375 / $750 $250 / $500 Band 2: $45,001-$60,000 $250 / $500 $375 / $750 $375 / $750 Band 3: $60,001-$90,000 $250 / $500 $375 / $750 $500 / $1,000 Band 4: Greater than $90,000 $250 / $500 $375 / $750 $625 / $1,250 Out-of-Pocket Maximum (Excluding Deductible) Individual $1,000 $1,250 $1,250 Family $2,000 $2,500 $2,500 Appendix M 12/03/19

Coinsurance Percentage 90% 90% 90% Services Preventive Care Covered at Covered at 100% Covered at 100% 100% Office Visit $10 copay $20 copay $20 copay Specialist Visit $20 copay $30 copay $30 copay Urgent Care $20 copay $30 copay $30 copay Emergency Room (Waived if admitted) $100 copay $100 copay $100 copay Pharmacy Preventive Drugs* Generic Drugs 50% 50% coinsurance 10% coinsurance coinsurance Formulary Brand Drugs 50% 50% coinsurance 20% coinsurance coinsurance Non-Formulary Brand Drugs 70% 70% coinsurance 40% coinsurance coinsurance Retail Generic Drugs 50% 50% coinsurance 50% coinsurance coinsurance Formulary Brand Drugs 50% 50% coinsurance 50% coinsurance coinsurance Non-Formulary Brand Drugs 70% 70% coinsurance 70% coinsurance coinsurance Mail Order Generic Drugs 20% 20% coinsurance 20% coinsurance coinsurance Formulary Brand Drugs 20% 20% coinsurance 20% coinsurance coinsurance Non-Formulary Brand Drugs 70% 70% coinsurance 70% coinsurance coinsurance Specialty Formulary Drugs 50% and $50 50% and $50 50% and $50 maximum maximum maximum Non-Formulary Drugs 70% and $100 70% and $100 70% and $100 maximum maximum maximum Out-of-pocket Maximum $1,000 / $2,000 / $8,000 $2,000/$8,000 $6,000 Contributions** Individual 1.81% 1.81% 1.51% 2 Person 4.40% 4.40% 3.68% Parent/Child(ren) 4.08% 4.08% 3.41% Family 5.61% 5.61% 4.69%

*Begins 2020

**Pay used for employee premium contributions capped at $140,000 Appendix M 12/03/19 PPO Savings Plan Provision 2016 2017 2018-2020 Description

Deductible Individual $1,300 $1,600 $1,600 Family $2,600 $3,200 $3,200 Out-of-Pocket Maximum (Excluding Deductible) Individual $2,100 $1,975 $1,975 Family $4,200 $3,950 $3,950 HSA Seed (Individual/Family) Band 1: Less than or equal to $45,000 $400 /$800 $600/$1,200 $800/$1,600 Band 2: $45,001-$60,000 $400 /$800 $600/$1,200 $600 /$1,200 Band 3: $60,001-$90,000 $400 /$800 $400 /$800 $400/$800 Band 4: Greater than $90,000 $400 /$800 $400 /$800 $200 /$400 Coinsurance Percentage 90% 90% 90% Pharmacy Preventive Drugs* Deductible waived* Generic Drugs 10% coinsurance 10% coinsurance 10% coinsurance Formulary Brand Drugs 10% coinsurance 20% coinsurance 20% coinsurance Non-Formulary Brand Drugs 10% coinsurance 40% coinsurance 40% coinsurance Retail Generic Drugs 10% coinsurance 10% coinsurance 10% coinsurance Formulary Brand Drugs 10% coinsurance 20% coinsurance 20% coinsurance Non-Formulary Brand Drugs 10% coinsurance 40% coinsurance 40% coinsurance Mail Order Generic Drugs 10% coinsurance 10% coinsurance 10% coinsurance Formulary Brand Drugs 10% coinsurance 20% coinsurance 20% coinsurance Non-Formulary Brand Drugs 10% coinsurance 40% coinsurance 40% coinsurance Specialty Formulary Drugs 10% coinsurance 20% and $65 20% and $65 minimum minimum Non-Formulary Drugs 10% coinsurance 40% and $100 40% and $100 minimum minimum Out-of-pocket Maximum Integrated with Integrated with Integrated with Medical Medical Medical Contributions** Individual 0.52% 0.63% 0.78% 2 Person 1.25% 1.53% 1.89% Parent/Child(ren) 1.16% 1.42% 1.75% Family 1.60% 1.95% 2.41% *Begins 2020

**Pay used for employee premium contributions capped at $140,000

Appendix M 12/03/19 Retiree health Retirees who are not Medicare-eligible subscribe to the same PPO or PPO Savings plan as active employees until they turn age 65. In the PPO, all 2019 rates stayed the same as 2018: Retiree-only $177.96, retiree plus spouse $355.92, retiree plus children $266.94, and retiree family $444.90. In the PPO Savings plan, all 2019 rates stayed the same for 2018: Retiree-only $128.45, retiree plus spouse $256.90, retiree plus children $192.68, and retiree family $321.14. The 2019 non-Medicare retiree premiums are roughly equal to an active employee salary of $90,000. Retirees who are Medicare participants can select the Part B Freedom Blue PPO plan as a Medicare Advantage plan that is fully insured by Highmark. For 2019, premiums for this plan remained at $80. Penn State pays approximately 80% of the total premium for this plan. For 2019 health plan enrollment data indicated:

• 12,611 or 72% of employees enrolled in the PPO plan • 5,018 or 28% of employees enrolled in the PPO Savings plan • 498 moved from PPO in 2018 to PPO Savings plan in 2019 • 220 moved from PPO Savings in 2018 to PPO plan in 2019 The chart in Appendix A shows Actual Claim Costs with Premium Cost Share, Employee out-of-pocket medical and prescription costs and cost sharing between the University and employees. In prior reports several charts listed the information separately. They have now been combined to show the overall picture over three years.

The chart shows that Medical and Drug spend is decreasing which can be explained by the following: • Aetna’s discounts from billed charges in 2018 were greater than Highmark’s in 2016 and 2017. This resulted in lower overall claims paid. • Administrative fees decreased approximately 23% from 2017 • Prescription drug rebates received more than doubled from 2017 to 2018. Rebates from 2016 to 2017 also doubled. • Plan design changes to both the PPO and PPO Savings Plan

The Employee Out of Pocket Costs Increasing can be explained by the following: • More employees migrated to PPO Savings Plan from 2016 to 2018 • Plan design changes to both the PPO and PPO Savings Plan, which impacted employee OOP costs for 2017 and 2018

Health Plan Benefit Changes for 2020 The total allowed medical costs for calendar year 2020 are projected to be $302,735,000. The medical plan costs and cost- sharing projections used to develop the 2020 plan design and contribution levels are in the Table below. There will be no changes to the premium contribution percentages for faculty and staff and the plan designs are not changing. There will be an enhancement to the prescription plan for both the PPO and PPO Savings Plans. A Preventive Drug List will provide members with the ability to by-pass the deductible in the PPO Savings Plan and go right to coinsurance when they obtain preventive drugs on the list. In the PPO Plan, there is no deductible, so the coinsurance is reduced. Appendix M 12/03/19 Table: 2020 Estimated Medical Health Plan Cost Projections

CALENDAR YEAR INFORMATION 2020 Projected Costs Total of Allowed Charges $302,735,000

PPO Plan Cost Share Participant OOP 10.1% Premium Contributions 14.9% HSA seed 0.0% Penn State Cost Share 75.0%

PPO Savings Plan Cost Share Participant OOP 18.0% Premium Contributions 9.4% HSA seed 4.1% Penn State Cost Share 68.5%

Contribution by University $225,148,000 Employee $77,587,000 Projected Cost Sharing % University 74.4% Employee 25.6%

2020 Benefits Open Enrollment is November 1, 2019-November 15, 2019 with all changes made effective January 1, 2020.

Benefit Changes under Consideration currently and/or Topics Discussed with No Change at this Time, or for Informational Purposes

The Committee did not recommend any changes for plan year 2020. The group will revisit the guiding principles established in 2016; specifically, the cost-sharing of 75% University/25% Employee.

Appendix M 12/03/19 Appendix A

What factors influenced the lower medical/Rx claims in 2018 vs. 2017, which resulted in reduced costs to the university? • Aetna’s discounts off of billed charges (starting January 1) are better than Highmark’s. This resulted in lower overall claims cost to Penn State. • The administrative fees decreased approximately 23% from 2017. • The prescription drug rebates the University received more than doubled from 2017 to 2018. Appendix M 12/03/19 Minimum and maximum employee out-of-pocket expenditures in 2018 (assuming lowest and highest premium formulas) and actual claims: Employee OOP + Premium Contributions Individual PPO PPO Savings Minimum $378 $195 Maximum $8,539 $4,667

Family PPO PPO Savings Minimum $1,173 $603 Maximum $18,743 $10,524

• Of the 216 who met the PPO Savings plan OOP max (individual/family), 68 had individual coverage and 148 covered others. No employee reached the OOP max in the PPO plan

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY BENEFITS • Tineke Battle • Ingrid Blood • Denise Costanzo • Lorraine Goffe • Raymond Najjar • Kathleen Noce, Vice Chair • Xuwen Peng • Linda Rhen • Ira Saltz, Chair • Geoff Scott • Gregory Stoner

JOINT COMMITTEE ON INSURANCE AND BENEFITS • Lorraine Goffe • Ingrid Blood • Renee Borromeo, Chair • Gina Burge • Diedre Folkers • Jonathan M. Light • Jody Murawski • Jill M. Musser • Ira Saltz • Linda Rhen • Geoff Scott • Gregory Stoner

Appendix N 12/03/19 SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS

Annual Report of the Senate Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics, Academic Year, 2018-2019 (Division 1 Athletics at University Park)

(Informational)

Introduction

The NCAA Faculty Athletics Representative (FAR) at University Park, in conjunction with the Senate Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics (IAC) provides an annual report about Penn State intercollegiate athletics to the University Faculty Senate. This report is drafted by the FAR at the University Park campus and is reviewed by the IAC, with the committee taking formal action to approve and submit the report to the Faculty Senate. The report is placed on a Senate meeting agenda where the FAR presents it and stands for questions. The focus of this report is on Division 1 Athletics at University Park. A separate report, submitted by the Committee on Campus Athletics (CCA) focuses on intercollegiate athletics at the non- University Park campuses, including competition at the Division 2 and Division 3 levels and competition in the Penn State University Athletic Conference (PSUAC). The report is organized into the following sections:

A. Descriptive data summarizing the Division I varsity student athlete population at the University Park Campus B. A review of progress on the item charged to the IAC committee for academic year 2018-2019 by Senate Chair Michael Berube. (See https://senate.psu.edu/senators/agendas-records/september-17-2019- agenda/appendix-i/) C. A review of ongoing business undertaken by the IAC during the 2018-2019 academic year. D. A Review of new business addressed by the IAC during the 2018-2019 academic year. E. Updates on the broader landscape of intercollegiate athletics provided to the IAC. F. Self- Monitoring, Oversight, and Quality Improvement Reports Related to Intercollegiate Athletics – Academic Year 2018-2019 G. Description of Faculty Athletics Representative’s Activities H. Student Athlete Academic Awards and Highlights I. Data and Metrics Used to Monitor the Academic Performance of Penn State’s Division I Student Athletes.

Appendix N 12/03/19

A. Descriptive Information About Division 1 Student Athletes at the University Park Campus (31 Varsity Teams) for Academic Year 2018-19

a. Total number of student-athletes = 815 (Fall 2018) and 773 (Spring 2019) b. Entering the Fall 2018 semester, the total number of student athletes who were ineligible due to academic reasons was seven (less than one percent of all student athletes). For the Spring 2019 semester nine student athletes were ineligible due to academic reasons (1.1 percent of all student athletes). c. Total number of student-athletes that were on a full or partial athletic scholarship for part or all of the 2018-2019 academic year was 615. This represents roughly 72% of the student athlete population based on about 850 student athlete participants during the academic year. d. 44.8% of Penn State student athletes were female and 55.2% were male. Of student athletes receiving full or partial athletic scholarship aid, 39.8% were female and 60.2% were male. e. 183 student athletes graduated during the 2018-2019 academic year which includes the December 2018, May 2019 and August 2019 commencement ceremonies. Of these graduates, 64% finished with a GPA of 3.00 or higher.

B. Progress on the Item Charged to the Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics by the Senate Chair Michael Berube

Senate Chair, Michael Berube charged IAC Chair, Mark Stephens with providing an informational brief regarding resources available for student-athletes that may be subject to a toxic/abusive coaching environment.

A subcommittee of the IAC was formed to address this issue. Working closely with individuals from the Department of Intercollegiate Athletics, elected IAC senators drafted a formal response to the Senate that was delivered in March of 2019 (See https://senate.psu.edu/senators/agendas-records/september-17-2019- agenda/appendix-i/). This document will be brought to the Senate floor during the fall 2019 academic semester.

Appendix N 12/03/19

C. Review of Ongoing Business Conducted by IAC during AY 2018-2019

1. Determine if Penn State’s Faculty Senate should continue formal participation in the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA). The 2017-2018 IAC committee suggested that Penn State’s participation in COIA was no longer necessary. The issue was, however, revisited again during academic year 2018-2019 following a conversation with Senate Chair Berube. The basis for revisiting the COIA participation decision was twofold. First, COIA announced a convening to try and reinvigorate the organization and Penn State was proactively asked to participate in this meeting (With Senator and ICA committee member Terry Blakney traveling to Knoxville, Tennessee to represent Penn State). Second, Emeritus Professor John Nichols released a white paper on faculty and Senate oversight of intercollegiate athletics, with the recommendation that COIA participation be reconsidered. Based on these facts, and after Terry Blakney’s participation in the COIA meeting in Knoxville, the IAC recommends continuing to monitor COIA and have Penn State representation at its next annual meeting, ultimately leaving open the decision about whether active and formal participation in COIA is worthwhile.

2. Continued Work on Updating Faculty Senate Policy 67-00. Faculty Senate Policy 67- 00 governs athletic competition and eligibility standards at Penn State University. This policy also establishes guidelines for excused missed class time for officially sanctioned university athletic competitions. During the 2018-2019 academic year, two specific changes to 67-00 policy were proposed and were subsequently approved at the April 23, 2019 Senate meeting.

The first change related to the process for petitioning an ineligibility determination based on cumulative GPA requirements. The change clarifies the appeal process to involve other members of the IAC in addition to the Faculty Athletics Representative to assist with the adjudication process.

The second change related to World Campus and other online instruction counting towards minimum credit requirements for determining full time status for athletic eligibility. The new provision specifically says: “Any credit-eligible course offered by Penn State and approved by the Faculty Senate (including residential instruction, residential online instruction, and/or World Campus classes), may be used to establish the minimum requirements for full time status.”

The committee also discussed other issues pertaining to updating Senate policy 67-00 but did not act on these issues. These issues will be considered again by the 2019-2020 committee. Specifically, the process for approving excused missed class time related to athletics competition, and the challenges associated with the IAC making these approvals given the fluid nature of when schedules are finalized. One solution discussed was a sub- Appendix N 12/03/19 group of the IAC acting on behalf of the full committee when requested excused missed class times are well within Senate 67-00 requirements. Such a change would allow for a more efficient scheduling process. A second issue that is recommended to be discussed in the 2019-2020 academic year is the review of Senate 67-00 guidelines regarding missed class time for athletic competitions. It is suggested that the committee review all aspects of this policy and compare it to similar policies at other Big Ten institutions. Specifically, the maximum number of excused absences for regular season competitions should be reviewed, as well as the algorithm for how half and full days of missed class are computed relative to the posted class period instruction schedule at University Park. Additionally, the committee should review how 67-00 policy addresses post-season competition (e.g., Conference Championships and NCAA post-season) regarding missed class times and determine if any updates to this policy should be made. Finally, it is recommended that the committee annually review all missed class time for each team for the prior season, including projected and approved missed class time, actual missed class time, and missed class time for post-season competitions.

D. New Business Undertaken by the IAC During the 2017-2018 Academic Year

1. Revisions to Faculty Senate 67-00 Policy

(a) Approval of Athletic Schedules for Spring 2019 Sports and Fall /Winter 2018 – 2019 Sports. As per committee standard, at two standing committee meetings, the IAC approved excused missed class time for the competition schedules for PSU athletic teams. The IAC works closely with the Department of Intercollegiate Athletics to ensure that the number of missed class days falls within Senate 67-00 policy (the current maximum for missed class days per semester is eight, not inclusive of any missed class due to post-season competition). All schedules were approved by IAC majority vote. There was one request for waiver of the Faculty Senate 67-00 policy related to not scheduling competitions on final exam study days for the Spring 2019 schedules. This (annually recurrent) request was for the men’s and women’s track and field teams to compete in the Penn Relays during the Saturday and Sunday final exam study days at the end of the spring semester. This was approved by the IAC with the understanding that the coaching staff would provide student athletes with time for exam study, and that the Morgan Academic Center staff would work with these student athletes to prepare for exams knowing that competition would occur during these study days. At the September 18, 2019 IAC meeting, the committee also approved a request for nine (one above the 67-00 limit of eight) missed class days for baseball for Spring 2019. This request, which was approved without opposition, was due to travel exigency reasons related to road game scheduling, including a particularly difficult Big Ten regular season conference schedule. There were three requests for competition on a study day for the Fall/Winter 2020 schedule; one for women’s basketball to compete at home on an exam study day on December 14, 2019; one for men’s basketball to compete at home on an exam study day on either December 14th or 15th, 2019, and one for Appendix N 12/03/19 men’s ice hockey to compete vs. Notre Dame on the December 14th, 2019 exam study date. All three of these requests were approved by the IAC.

(b) Faculty Senate Approval of Football Bowl Game – Current Penn State Faculty Senate Policy requires the IAC to approve Penn State’s participation in a Bowl Game. Because Bowl Announcements have become ‘automatic’ through the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) process, the University has little to no choice regarding bowl game date/location/opponent. The IAC unanimously approved PSU participation in the Citrus Bowl.

E. Updates of Interest in the Broader Landscape of Intercollegiate Athletics

During Academic Year 2018--2019, the committee was briefed by various individuals on a number of items receiving attention in the broader landscape of intercollegiate athletics. These briefings included:

(i) Legislation regarding athletic transfers has been a major topic of discussion nationally. Matt Stolberg, Penn State’s Associate Athletics Director for Compliance, and Sandy Barbour, Vice President for Intercollegiate Athletics, led a discussion related to new transfer rules. This included a discussion of the implications of the new ‘Transfer Portal’ and the ability of institutions to withdraw financial aid for those student athletes who provide notification of intent to transfer. Given that this was the first year for the Transfer Portal, ICA, Athletics Compliance, and the Faculty Athletics Representative will all continue to monitor issues related to the portal and will brief the IAC as necessary.

(ii) Gambling Legislation – Pennsylvania, like many other states, passed legislation to legalize sports wagering in the Commonwealth. At the October 23, 2018 meeting Vice President for Intercollegiate Athletics Barbour and Compliance Director Stolberg discussed the potential impact of the legislation, including potential risks to student athletes and athletic programs, as well as initial thoughts on what Penn State will need to do to monitor this issue going forward.

(iii) NCAA Alston-Jenkins Antitrust Litigation – Throughout the course of the 2018- 2019 academic year the IAC heard updates on the pending antitrust legislation around the legal question of whether the NCAA could cap grant in aid award amounts for student athletes. At the March 12, 2019 IAC meeting, Vice President for Intercollegiate Athletics Barbour reported that Judge Claudia Wilkin ruled that a cap on grant in aid violated federal anti-trust laws. However, Judge Wilkin also ruled that any additional payments to student athletes above the cost of attendance must be ‘tethered’ to academic expenses related to education. Vice President Appendix N 12/03/19 Barbour indicated that the exact meaning of ‘tethered expenses’ is unknown and thus neither the plaintiffs or the defendants were particularly pleased with the court’s decision and both sides were expected to appeal the ruling. It is likely that the appeals process will further delay an ultimate and final decision regarding ‘pay for play’ and whether NCAA rules will ultimately be viewed as in violation of federal antitrust laws. This issue will be important for Penn State and the Big Ten Conference to continue to monitor.

F. Self- Monitoring, Oversight, and Quality Improvement Reports Related to Intercollegiate Athletics – Academic Year 2018-19

The IAC routinely monitors various metrics of student athlete academic performance and academic integrity through a series of reports provided by specific individuals with administrative responsibility for these areas.

(i) Class Clustering and Grade Distribution Review for Student Athletes – At the December 4, 2018 meeting, Vice President and Dean for Undergraduate Education, Robert Pangborn, discussed an analysis of class clustering and class grade distributions. This review is done annually, with a lag, to ensure that there are no courses were student athletes make up a disproportionate number of the overall students (i.e., student athlete clustering in specific courses), and an examination that grades assigned to student athletes within specific courses do not have a significantly different distribution of letter grades relative to non-athlete students. The majority of the courses examined are General Education courses with at least 20% of the enrolled students consisting of student athletes. This process has been ongoing for ten years. Dr. Pangborn reported that the analysis concluded that there were no obvious concerns related to either significant clustering of student athletes in particular courses or concerning grade assignments for student athletes in specific courses.

(ii) Reserved Spaces Program – At the March 12, 2019 IAC committee meeting, Vice President and Dean for Undergraduate Education, Robert Pangborn, distributed his annual report on the ‘Reserved Spaces Program’ sponsored by the Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling, and Student Aid The reserved spaces program allows for students accepted to any Penn State campus other than University Park to be reassigned to the University Park campus if the student has a particular talent, in this case athletic talent, for which University Park is the only campus that meets the student’s needs. The athletic portion of the reserved spaces program has been capped at a maximum of 140 students, though in recent years many fewer than this number have been utilized for athletic purposes. Dr. Pangborn also presented data that monitors the academic performance of those student athletes reassigned to University Park through the reserved spaces program. Specifically, Dr. Pangborn reviews annually the predicted GPA for students admitted under the reserved spaces program. The admissions office uses a mathematical regression model to predict a science and non-science GPA based on academic indicators and standardized testing from the admissions process. Dr. Pangborn examines whether reserved spaces are being used to Appendix N 12/03/19 admit high-risk student athletes. Based on his review, no significant concerns regarding the Department of Intercollegiate Athletics’ use of reserved spaces were reported, suggesting that the reserve spaces program is not being used to admit student athletes who are not academically qualified to meet the academic rigors of the curriculum offered at University Park, based on the predicted GPA regression model.

(iii) Grade Change Monitoring - Since the Fall of 2017, the registrar’s office has provided daily grade change reports to the FAR, the Athletics Compliance office, and the Morgan Academic Center. A process has been instituted to flag grade changes for student athletes that would positively alter eligibility (i.e., going from ineligible to eligible due to the grade change). This process involves the Morgan Academic Center staff examining every grade change reported by the registrar for student athletes to determine if the change positively impacted eligibility. In situations where eligibility status was changed as a result of the grade change, the Faculty Athletics Representative follows up with the faculty member to confirm the legitimacy of the grade change. Dr. Scanlon reported that he confirmed two grade changes in academic year 2018-2019 with faculty members.

(iv) College Enrollment and Student Athletes’ Majors – At the March 2019 IAC meeting, Russ Mushinsky, Director of the Morgan Academic Center, presented the committee with data related to the college enrollment and major selections for student athletes, and compared this information to the general student body. The report, which is presented every other year, is designed to ensure that student athletes are not clustered in a small number of colleges or majors, either at the overall intercollegiate athletic level or within teams. The committee found no evidence of concern related to clustering within college or major at the team or overall ICA level, and was pleased to see that Penn State’s student athletes are pursing academic areas of study across the University’s offerings.

(v) Academic Performance Metrics Tracked and Reported by the NCAA, the Big Ten Conference and the Federal Government - Russ Mushinsky, Director of the Morgan Academic Center, provided the IAC with information on academic data for the Penn State student athlete population. The NCAA’s published ‘Graduation Success Rate (GSR)’ and the ‘Academic Progress Rate (APR)’, were presented along with the Federal Graduation Rate (FGR). The GSR, FGR and APR are metrics tracked and reported by the NCAA to benchmark, compare, and track institutional results on the academic progress of student athletes. These statistics are included in section I of this report. Overall, Penn State’s progress on these metrics is very good, with the most recent GSR standing at 90%. During his presentation, Mr. Mushinsky provided detailed breakdowns of the academic metrics (e.g., by sport) and with comparison data relative to other Big Ten and NCAA institutions. A brief synopsis of the methodology used to compete these measures is also provided in Section I of this report.

Appendix N 12/03/19 (vi) Student Athlete Experience Survey - Senior Associate Athletic Director and Senior Woman Administrator, Charmelle Green, is updating the student athlete experience survey fielded annually by the Department of Intercollegiate Athletics. At the April 23, 2019 IAC meeting Charmelle provided committee members with details of proposed survey questions and asked for feedback from the committee. When survey results are available after data collection, information from the survey about student athletes’ experiences will be shared with the IAC for its review.

(vii) Student Athlete Academic Performance Data Sub-Committee – Committee feedback and dialogue regarding the data presented by Russ Mushinsky at the December 4, 2018 IAC meeting, about the GSR, APR, and FGR (see above), as well as comparisons with other NCAA and Big Ten institutions, led to a robust discussion of how Penn State tracks and reports data pertaining to student athletes’ academic performance and success. Specifically, there was a desire to form a sub-committee to look at new ways to present the data, with a particular focus on longitudinal trends as well as the ability to examine performance among specific sub-groups of athletes or teams. At its January 29, 2019 meeting, the IAC appointed a sub- committee to review this issue and to make recommendations on data formats to be reported on an annual basis to the IAC. Russ Mushinsky was charged with convening this group and a first meeting was held in April of 2019. Members of the sub-committee in addition to the chair included James Strauss, Frank Guadagnino, Michael Tyworth, Lynn Holleran, and Dennis Scanlon. The sub-committee identified four areas that should be further examined to ensure that data reporting on student athlete performance meets the needs of the committee and other internal and external stakeholders. The sub-committee should focus on these areas during the 2019-2020 academic year and report back to the full IAC committee on its recommendations.

(viii) Overview of Athletics Compliance and the Office of Ethics and Compliance – At the October 23, 2018 meeting Associate Athletics Director for Compliance – Matt Stolberg, presented the committee with an overview of his role, the role of his office and the reporting relationship to The Office of Ethics and Compliance. Importantly, Mr. Stolberg and his office have a direct reporting relationship outside of Intercollegiate Athletics, which is considered best practice in the industry. Mr. Stolberg routinely provides the IAC with highlights of key NCAA legislative proposals that are put forth in the fall semester and that are voted on at the NCAA Convention in January, allowing the committee the opportunity to weigh in on any significant NCAA legislative proposal that will be on the agenda for vote.

(ix) Overview of Committee on Campus Athletics – At the October 23, 2018 meeting, Maureen Cooper, Director of Commonwealth Campus Athletics for the Office of Ethics and Compliance, was introduced to discuss her role and the Committee on Campus Athletics (CCA). The CCA governs intercollegiate athletics at the Commonwealth campuses which compete in multiple sports at the Division 2 and Division 3 levels as well as in the Penn State University Athletic Conference. The D2 Appendix N 12/03/19 and D3 Commonwealth campuses also have their own Faculty Athletics Representatives (FARs) that provide monitoring and oversight of their campus athletic programs. The NCAA 2019 legislation now requires graduation rates for Division 3 athletics programs. Going forward, the Faculty Senate and IAC may want to consider whether Senate Policy should officially separate reporting requirements for the University Park Division 1 athletics program and the Commonwealth Campus athletics programs. Doing so would emphasize the both the differences and the importance of these various athletics programs. At the April 23, 2019 IAC meeting, Vice Chair and faculty senator Terry Blakney discussed Senate Policy 67-30 pertaining to Commonwealth Campus Athletics, and the potential need to review changes to this policy.

(x) Vice President for Intercollegiate Athletics, Sandy Barbour, briefed the Faculty Senate about the current state of Intercollegiate Athletics and student athletes’ academic and athletic performance, and stood on the floor for questions at the February 2019 Faculty Senate meeting.

G. Description of Faculty Athletics Representative’s Activities

The National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) requires each member institution to appoint a FAR “to provide oversight of the academic integrity of the athletics program, and to serve as an advocate for student athlete well-being” (https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/FAR_STUDY_Report_final.pdf). At Penn State the FAR is appointed by and reports to the University President following the solicitation of nominations for the position by the Senate’s Committee on Committees and Rules (CCSA). The FAR is an ex-officio member of the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee (IAC) and “represents the faculty in all matters related to varsity athletics at University Park” (https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/FAR_STUDY_Report_final.pdf). In this role, the FAR routinely interacts with the Department of Intercollegiate Athletics, the Office of Athletics Compliance, the Morgan Academic Center, the Vice President for Undergraduate Education, the Athletics Integrity Officer, the Vice President for Administration, and other offices and individuals with direct responsibility for, or oversight of Penn State’s Athletics program. In this capacity the FAR is a member of many standing committees, such as the Athletics Integrity Council. The FAR also oversees and participates in many important processes such as the administration of the NCAA Coaches Exam, the certification of student athlete eligibility for practice and competition, the appeals committee for violations of the Intercollegiate Athletics substance abuse and alcohol policy, and numerous other processes including annual review meetings with head coaches from each of Penn State’s thirty-one varsity programs. The FAR is the signatory for self-reports of any NCAA or Big Ten Conference rules violations, as well as requests for waivers and appeals pertaining to issues such as athletic eligibility or medical hardship.

The FAR also participates in Big Ten Conference governance, serving as a member of the Appendix N 12/03/19 Big Ten’s ‘Joint Group’, which consists of the Athletic Directors, Senior Woman Administrators, and FARs at all fourteen Conference Institutions, The Joint Group meets four times annually and periodically with the Conference’s Council of Presidents and Chancellors (COPC). The Conference’s FARs also meet separately five times annually in conjunction with the JG and COPC meetings. Collectively these various groups monitor and set Conference rules and policies, discuss emergent and strategic issues pertaining to intercollegiate athletics, and discuss NCAA and Autonomy Five policies and proposed legislation.

For the 2018-2019 academic year, Dr. Scanlon, Penn State’s FAR, served as a member of the Big 10 Conference’s Joint Group Executive Committee and as a member of the Conference’s Budget and Finance committee. For the 2019-2020 academic year, Dr. Scanlon remains on the Budget and Finance committee and also serves as the Chair of the Joint Group Executive Committee and the Joint Group, as well as the FAR Group. In these capacities Dr. Scanlon has responsibility for setting the meeting agendas and presiding over the meetings. In addition, as chair of the Joint Group, Dr. Scanlon is a liaison to the COPC, attending their bi- annual meetings. At the national level, Dr. Scanlon attended the annual NCAA convention in January of 2019 as well as the associated Autonomy Five Conference meeting.

In his capacity as FAR, Dr. Scanlon, represents Penn State’s perspective in various Conference and National issues, and also brings back to campus relevant information on issues discussed so as to inform the Penn State process. For example, the Conference’s FAR group recently met with three Athletics Compliance Directors from Conference institutions to discuss a number of important issues. Following this meeting Dr. Scanlon provided a briefing to Matt Stolberg, Associate Athletics Director for Compliance, about these discussions. Dr. Scanlon has provided similar briefings to President Eric Barron on relevant topics such as the Rice basketball commission report, the Alston-Jenkins court ruling, and the transfer portal and transfer environment.

H. Student Athlete Academic Award Highlights

1. Individual and Team GPA Performance – During the Fall 2018 academic semester, 518 of 815 student athletes earned a GPA of 3.00 or higher and 26 of 31 teams had an average team GPA of 3.00 or higher. Similar numbers for the Spring 2019 semester were 505 of 773 student athletes and 26 of 31 teams.

2. Big Ten Post-Graduate Scholarship Winners – Two Penn State student athletes were awarded one-time $7,500 awards to support the pursuit of graduate education. The female winner was Jessica Jones from Women’s Gymnastics who will be pursuing a master’s degree in Occupational Therapy. The male winner was Gavin Turner from Men’s Fencing who will be enrolling in Medical School in the fall of 2019. The Faculty Athletics Representative annually nominates several other student Appendix N 12/03/19 athletes for prestigious national postgraduate scholarship awards offered by the NCAA and Big Ten Conference.

3. Big Ten Conference Distinguished Scholar Award – This Conference award acknowledges student athletes who have earned an academic year GPA of 3.70 or higher. This award was established by the Big Ten’s Faculty Athletics Representatives in 2008 to acknowledge the significant academic accomplishments of this elite group of student athletes. In 2018-2019, Penn State had 117 Big-Ten Distinguished Scholars. The following graph illustrates Penn State’s longitudinal trend for this award from academic year 2009-2010 to academic year 2018-2019.

Big Ten Distinguished Scholars

97 90

73 69

4. Academic All-Big Ten Selections - The Big Ten Conference annually announces All Big Ten Academic selections. Eligibility for this award requires a cumulative GPA of 3.00 or higher. Student athletes are eligible for this award beginning in their second academic year of enrollment and can earn the award for each subsequent year if they maintain a cumulative 3.00 GPA. Historically, Penn State has earned 6,603 Academic All-Big Ten selections since 1991-92 (our first year of competition in some Big Ten sports). For the 2018-2019 academic year, Penn State had 368 student athletes receive this distinction. The following graph illustrates the 2009-2010 to 2018-2019 trend in Academic All-Big Ten selections for the fall, winter, and spring sports teams. Appendix N 12/03/19

I. Data and Metrics Used to Monitor the Academic Performance of Penn State’s Division 1 Student Athletes The NCAA requires all member institutions to track and report three standardized metrics. Two of these metrics (GSR and FGR – see below) measure the degree to which student athletes graduate and complete their academic degrees. The third metric (APR – see below) measures progress towards degree, which is an important predictor of the likelihood of graduation. The NCAA publicly reports these measures, including national benchmarks for these measures, as a way of facilitating comparisons and holding member institutions accountable for academic success. The NCAA also sets minimum requirements for some of these metrics in order for teams to be eligible for post-season competition. Finally, beginning in the Spring of 2020, the NCAA has instituted an ‘Academic Based Revenue Distribution Model’, which ties a portion of NCAA revenue distribution to member institutions based on achieving certain thresholds for each of these three measures.

The tables below present Penn State’s longitudinal information for the Graduation Success Rate (GSR), the Academic Progress Rates (APR) and the Federal Graduation Rate (FGR). The reader should note that the standardized computation of these rates follows NCAA guidelines, which can be somewhat complicated to understand. For readers interested in understanding the details of these computations, information is provided below the table regarding their calculation. In addition, more detailed breakdown of the GSR and APR by specific team or by gender. Appendix N 12/03/19

PENN STATE, 10-YEAR HISTORY NCAA ACADEMIC METRICS NCAA NCAA DIVISION DIVISION I PENN STATE NCAA DIVISION I PENN STATE I AVERAGE PENN STATE AVERAGE ACADEMIC PENN STATE AVERAGE FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL PROGRESS ACADEMIC GRADUATION GRADUATION GRADUATION GRADUATION GRADUATION- GRADUATION RATE (APR) – REPORTING SUCCESS SUCCESS RATE RATE - (FGR RATE - (FGR (FGR FOUR- - (FGR FOUR- 29/31 TEAM YEAR RATE (GSR) (GSR) SINGLE-YEAR) SINGLE YEAR) YEAR) YEAR) SINGLE-YEAR 2009-10 89 79 76 64 82 63 981 (29) 2010-11 90 79 76 64 80 64 980 (29) 2011-12 88 80 80 65 79 64 980 (29) 2012-13 88 80 80 65 78 64 985 (29) 2013-14 88 81 77 65 78 65 985 (31)* 2014-15 89 82 77 65 79 65 982 (31) 2015-16 88 83 80 67 79 66 981 (29)# 2016-17 89 84 78 66 78 66 991 (29) 2017-18 90 86 76 68 78 67 980 (29) 2018-19 90 87 82 68 79 67 981(29)

*Apr Data – Starting in 2013-2014 report, M/W Ice Hockey Included in reports. # APR Data – Starting in 2015-2016 report, M/W Indoor & Outdoor Track counted as one team.

Notes to facilitate interpreting the GSR, APR, and FGR metrics: 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. So, for example, Penn State’s most recently reported GSR rate of 90% is based on the cohort of scholarship student athletes who enrolled in the academic year commencing in the fall of 2011, and includes the percentage that graduated within the six-year window ending in summer 2017.

The Academic Progress Rate (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 (multiyear) rolling average. The APR scores are a measure of eligibility and retention/graduation for each student athlete receiving an athletic scholarship 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. The APR is used to monitor the extent to which enrolled student athletes are making sufficient academic progress towards their chosen majors so as to be on track to graduate in a timely fashion. Since 2015-16, teams must earn a four-year APR average of 930 to be eligible to compete in NCAA sponsored championships. Appendix N 12/03/19

The Federal Graduation Rate (FGR) measures the percentage of fall, first-time, full-time freshman receiving an athletics scholarship who graduate within six years of entering their original four-year institution. The cohort does not include January enrollees, or transfer student athletes that receive athletics aid. The cohort does exclude those that leave an institution in good standing (i.e., leaving academically and athletically eligible).

SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS ● Sandy Barbour ● Terry Blakney, Vice Chair ● Robert Boland ● Alexis Burke ● Wendy Coduti ● Dwight Davis ● Charmelle Green ● Galen Grimes • Frank Guadagnino ● Meredith Handley ● Lynn Holleran ● Todd LaJeunesse ● Andrew Miles ● Russell Mushinsky ● Robert Pangborn ● Daniel Perkins ● Dennis Scanlon ● Mark Stephens, Chair ● Cynthia Stifter ● Matthew Stolberg ● James Strauss ● Michael Tyworth

Appendix N 12/03/19 Appendix A – NCAA Academic Progress Rate

NCAA ACADEMIC PROGRESS RATE (APR) INFORMATION 2017-2018 (SINGLE-YEAR AND FOUR-YEAR DATA) / RELEASED IN MAY 2019 PENN STATE RANKINGS

Single- Four- Four-Year Four-Year Penn State Intercollegiate Year Year Four-Year APR APR All APR Public Athletic Teams Team Team Ranking w/in Big Division I Institution APR APR Ten Conference Average Average Baseball 990 990 Tied for 5th (13) 976 973 Men’s Basketball 915 954 11th (14) 967 963 Men’s Cross Country 1000 953 10th (12) 982 978 Men’s Fencing 1000 968 2nd (2) 982 978 Football 966 979 Tied for 5th (14) 964 962 Men’s Golf 1000 1000 Tied for 1st (14) 985 983 Men’s Gymnastics 1000 994 4th (7) 989 989 Men’s Ice Hockey 988 997 Tied for 2nd (7) 986 984 Men’s Lacrosse 1000 992 1st (6) 982 982 Men’s Soccer 961 980 6th (9) 979 974 Men’s Swimming & Diving 1000 977 Tied for 8th (10) 982 982 Men’s Tennis 1000 980 8th (12) 983 981 Men’s Track & Field 966 966 11th (13) 973 968 Men’s Volleyball 977 983 2nd (2) 986 983 Wrestling 980 996 1st (14) 976 975 Women’s Basketball 957 959 Tied for 13th 982 979 Women’s Cross Country 1000 1000 Tied for 1st (14) 989 987 Women’s Fencing 1000 1000 Tied for 1st (3) 991 985 Field Hockey 989 989 Tied for 6th (9) 991 989 Women’s Golf 1000 993 9th (14) 991 991 Women’s Gymnastics 981 955 10th (10) 993 994 Women’s Ice Hockey 1000 997 1st (4) 991 988 Women’s Lacrosse 1000 996 Tied for 3rd (7) 992 992 Women’s Soccer 973 993 9th (14) 989 987 Softball 947 980 13th (14) 986 984 Women’s Swimming & 979 990 12th (13) 993 992 Women’s Tennis 938 992 Tied for 10th 990 989 Women’s Track & Field 1000 996 2nd (13) 983 980 Women’s Volleyball 929 989 Tied for 10th 987 986

Appendix N 12/03/19 (#) = Number of schools in the Big Ten Conference who sponsor the sport.

PENN STATE UNIVERSITY ACADEMIC PROGRESS RATE (APR) DATA SINGLE -YEAR APR MULTI- TEAM 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 YEAR Baseball 980 1000 991 990 990 Men's Basketball 942 1000 960 915 954 Men's Cross Country 891 1000 935 1000 953 Men's Fencing 1000 1000 875 1000 968 Football 993 972 988 966 979 Men's Golf 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 Men's Gymnastics 1000 975 978 1000 994 Men's Ice Hockey 989 1000 1000 988 997 Men's Lacrosse 985 1000 970 1000 992 Men's Soccer 1000 973 974 961 980 Men's Swimming 976 969 964 1000 977 Men's Tennis 968 972 980 1000 980 Men's Track & Field 918 991 983 966 966 Men's Volleyball 1000 1000 950 977 983 Wrestling 1000 1000 1000 980 996 Women's Basketball 936 1000 948 957 959 Women's Cross Country 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 Women's Fencing 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 Field Hockey 989 990 990 989 989 Women's Golf 972 1000 1000 1000 993 Women's Gymnastics 946 938 957 981 955 Women's Ice Hockey 1000 990 1000 1000 997 Women's Lacrosse 991 991 1000 1000 996 Women's Soccer 1000 1000 1000 973 993 Softball 1000 988 986 947 980 Women's Swimming 990 1000 990 979 990 Women's Tennis 1000 1000 1000 938 992 Women's Track & Field 983 1000 1000 1000 996 Women's Volleyball 1000 1000 1000 929 989

Appendix N 12/03/19 5/6/19

NCAA ACADEMIC PROGRESS RATE INFORMATION

2017-2018 (Four-Year Data)

Big Ten Conference

Sport: Baseball

Institution* APR Michigan 1000 Northwestern 1000 Minnesota 998 Nebraska 991 Penn State 990 Illinois 990 Purdue 989 Rutgers 977 Indiana 974 Ohio State 968 Michigan State 965 Maryland 962 Iowa 958 Wisconsin --

*Rank Order by Four-Year APR Score

All Division I Average 976 Public Average 973

NCAA ACADEMIC PROGRESS RATE INFORMATION

2017-2018 (Four-Year Data)

Big Ten Conference

Sport: Men's Basketball

Institution* APR Michigan State 1000 Northwestern 1000 Michigan 995 Rutgers 984 Wisconsin 980 Nebraska 969 Illinois 968 Iowa 965 Maryland 964 Purdue 955 Penn State 954 Minnesota 948 Indiana 944 Ohio State 940

*Rank Order by Four-Year APR Score

All Division I Average 967 Public Average 963

NCAA ACADEMIC PROGRESS RATE INFORMATION

2017-2018 (Four-Year Data)

Big Ten Conference

Sport: Men's Cross Country

Institution* APR Minnesota 1000 Rutgers 1000 Michigan 995 Illinois 993 Iowa 991 Nebraska 991 Indiana 990 Michigan State 990 Wisconsin 988 Penn State 953 Ohio State 952 Purdue 952 Maryland -- Northwestern --

*Rank Order by Four-Year APR Score

All Division I Average 982 Public Average 978

NCAA ACADEMIC PROGRESS RATE INFORMATION

2017-2018 (Four-Year Data)

Big Ten Conference

Sport: Men's Fencing

Institution* APR Ohio State 978 Penn State 968 Illinois -- Indiana -- Iowa -- Maryland -- Michigan -- Michigan State -- Minnesota -- Nebraska -- Northwestern -- Purdue -- Rutgers -- Wisconsin --

*Rank Order by Four-Year APR Score

All Division I Average 982 Public Average 978

NCAA ACADEMIC PROGRESS RATE INFORMATION

2017-2018 (Four-Year Data)

Big Ten Conference

Sport: Football

Institution* APR Northwestern 996 AllOhio State 987 Illinois 982 Michigan 982 Penn State 979 Wisconsin 979 Minnesota 978 Nebraska 977 Iowa 973 Indiana 972 Rutgers 971 Maryland 965 Purdue 956 Michigan State 948

*Rank Order by Four-Year APR Score

All Division I Average 964 Football Bowl Sub-Division Average 968 Public Average 962

NCAA ACADEMIC PROGRESS RATE INFORMATION

2017-2018 (Four-Year Data)

Big Ten Conference

Sport: Men's Golf

Institution* APR Penn State 1000 Illinois 1000 Indiana 1000 Purdue 1000 Rutgers 1000 Iowa 993 Michigan State 989 Ohio State 986 Michigan 984 Minnesota 984 Nebraska 976 Northwestern 976 Wisconsin 974 Maryland 967

*Rank Order by Four-Year APR Score

All Division I Average 985 Public Average 983

NCAA ACADEMIC PROGRESS RATE INFORMATION

2017-2018 (Four-Year Data)

Big Ten Conference Sport: Men's Gymnastics

Institution* APR Michigan 1000 Nebraska 1000 Iowa 995 Penn State 994 Minnesota 992 Illinois 990 Ohio State 957 Indiana -- Maryland -- Michigan State -- Northwestern -- Purdue -- Rutgers -- Wisconsin --

*Rank Order by Four-Year APR Score

All Division I Average 989 Public Average 989

NCAA ACADEMIC PROGRESS RATE INFORMATION

2017-2018 (Four-Year Data)

Big Ten Conference Sport: Men's Ice Hockey

Institution* APR Minnesota 1000 Penn State 997 Michigan State 997 Notre Dame 991 Michigan 989 Ohio State 986 Wisconsin 982 Illinois -- Indiana -- Iowa -- Maryland -- Nebraska -- Northwestern -- Purdue --

*Rank Order by Four-Year APR Score

All Division I Average 986 Public Average 984

NCAA ACADEMIC PROGRESS RATE INFORMATION

2017-2018 (Four-Year Data)

Big Ten Conference

Sport: Men's Lacrosse

Institution* APR Penn State 992 Michigan 991

Johns Hopkins 987 Ohio State 987 Rutgers 985 Maryland 977 Illinois -- Indiana -- Iowa -- Michigan State --

Minnesota -- Nebraska -- Northwestern --

Purdue --

*Rank Order by Four-Year APR Score

All Division I Average 982 Public Average 982

NCAA ACADEMIC PROGRESS RATE INFORMATION

2017-2018 (Four-Year Data)

Big Ten Conference

Sport: Men's Soccer

Institution* APR Northwestern 1000 Wisconsin 996 Michigan State 994 Michigan 990 Indiana 981 Penn State 980 Rutgers 975 Ohio State 973 Maryland 943 Illinois -- Iowa -- Minnesota -- Nebraska -- Purdue --

*Rank Order by Four-Year APR Score

All Division I Average 979 Public Average 974

NCAA ACADEMIC PROGRESS RATE INFORMATION

2017-2018 (Four-Year Data)

Big Ten Conference

Sport: Men's Swimming & Diving

Institution* APR Michigan State 1000 Michigan 996 Wisconsin 992 Northwestern 991 Purdue 990 Indiana 986 Minnesota 980 Penn State 977 Iowa 977 Ohio State 969 Illinois Maryland Nebraska Rutgers

*Rank Order by Four-Year APR Score

All Division I Average 982 Public Average 982

NCAA ACADEMIC PROGRESS RATE INFORMATION

2017-2018 (Four-Year Data)

Big Ten Conference

Sport: Men's Tennis

Institution* APR Michigan 1000 Minnesota 1000 Ohio State 1000 Wisconsin 1000 Michigan State 993 Northwestern 992 Purdue 982 Penn State 980 Nebraska 978 Illinois 975 Indiana 969 Iowa 955 Maryland Rutgers

*Rank Order by Four-Year APR Score

All Division I Average 983 Public Average 981

NCAA ACADEMIC PROGRESS RATE INFORMATION

2017-2018 (Four-Year Data)

Big Ten Conference

Sport: Men's Track & Field

Institution* APR Illinois 993 Minnesota 987 Rutgers 983 Michigan 982 Nebraska 981 Maryland 979 Wisconsin 977 Indiana 973 Iowa 970 Michigan State 967 Penn State 966 Purdue 954 Ohio State 949 Northwestern --

*Rank Order by Four-Year APR Score

All Division I Average 973 Public Average 968

NCAA ACADEMIC PROGRESS RATE INFORMATION

2017-2018 (Four-Year Data)

Big Ten Conference

Sport: Men's Volleyball

Institution* APR Ohio State 985 Penn State 983 Illinois Indiana Iowa Maryland Michigan Michigan State Minnesota Nebraska Northwestern Purdue Rutgers Wisconsin

*Rank Order by Four-Year APR Score

All Division I Average 986 Public Average 983

NCAA ACADEMIC PROGRESS RATE INFORMATION

2017-2018 (Four-Year Data)

Big Ten Conference

Sport: Wrestling

Institution* APR Penn State 996 Wisconsin 994 Michigan 988 Minnesota 986 Nebraska 986 Illinois 985 Indiana 985 Michigan State 984 Iowa 982 Northwestern 981 Ohio State 979 Rutgers 978 Purdue 976 Maryland 954

*Rank Order by Four-Year APR Score

All Division I Average 976 Public Average 975

NCAA ACADEMIC PROGRESS RATE INFORMATION

2017-2018 (Four-Year Data)

Big Ten Conference

Sport: Women's Basketball

Institution* APR Northwestern 1000 Wisconsin 996 Michigan 995 Illinois 991 Nebraska 990 Rutgers 986 Iowa 982 Indiana 981 Minnesota 981 Purdue 978 Maryland 964 Ohio State 962 Penn State 959 Michigan State 959

*Rank Order by Four-Year APR Score

All Division I Average 982 Public Average 979

NCAA ACADEMIC PROGRESS RATE INFORMATION

2017-2018 (Four-Year Data)

Big Ten Conference

Sport: Women's Cross Country

Institution* APR Penn State 1000 Illinois 1000 Michigan 1000 Minnesota 1000 Northwestern 1000 Rutgers 1000 Wisconsin 1000 Michigan State 997 Indiana 996 Maryland 992 Ohio State 990 Iowa 988 Purdue 988 Nebraska 980

*Rank Order by Four-Year APR Score

All Division I Average 989 Public Average 987

NCAA ACADEMIC PROGRESS RATE INFORMATION

2017-2018 (Four-Year Data)

Big Ten Conference Sport: Women's Fencing

Institution* APR Penn State 1000 Northwestern 1000 Ohio State 971 Illinois -- Indiana -- Iowa -- Maryland -- Michigan -- Michigan State -- Minnesota -- Nebraska -- Purdue -- Rutgers -- Wisconsin --

*Rank Order by Four-Year APR Score

All Division I Average 991 Public Average 985

NCAA ACADEMIC PROGRESS RATE INFORMATION

2017-2018 (Four-Year Data)

Big Ten Conference

Sport: Field Hockey

Institution* APR Indiana 1000 Northwestern 1000 Rutgers 1000 Michigan 993 Michigan State 991 Penn State 989 Maryland 989 Ohio State 988 Iowa 967 Illinois -- Minnesota -- Nebraska -- Purdue -- Wisconsin --

*Rank Order by Four-Year APR Score

All Division I Average 991 Public Average 989

NCAA ACADEMIC PROGRESS RATE INFORMATION

2017-2018 (Four-Year Data)

Big Ten Conference

Sport: Women's Golf

Institution* APR Illinois 1000 Michigan 1000 Minnesota 1000 Northwestern 1000 Ohio State 1000 Purdue 1000 Rutgers 1000 Wisconsin 1000 Penn State 993 Maryland 992 Nebraska 992 Indiana 986 Michigan State 986 Iowa 979

*Rank Order by Four-Year APR Score

All Division I Average 991 Public Average 991

NCAA ACADEMIC PROGRESS RATE INFORMATION

2017-2018 (Four-Year Data)

Big Ten Conference

Sport: Women's Gymnastics

Institution* APR Nebraska 1000 Rutgers 1000 Ohio State 996 Illinois 995 Maryland 995 Michigan 995 Minnesota 995 Michigan State 991 Iowa 990 Penn State 955 Indiana -- Northwestern -- Purdue -- Wisconsin --

*Rank Order by Four-Year APR Score

All Division I Average 993 Public Average 994

NCAA ACADEMIC PROGRESS RATE INFORMATION

2017-2018 (Four-Year Data)

Big Ten Conference

Sport: Women's Ice Hockey

Institution* APR Penn State 997 Minnesota 994 Wisconsin 987 Ohio State 980 Illinois -- Indiana -- Iowa -- Maryland -- Michigan -- Michigan State -- Nebraska -- Northwestern -- Purdue -- Rutgers --

*Rank Order by Four-Year APR Score

All Division I Average 991 Public Average 988

NCAA ACADEMIC PROGRESS RATE INFORMATION

2017-2018 (Four-Year Data)

Big Ten Conference

Sport: Women's Lacrosse

Institution* APR Northwestern 1000 Rutgers 1000 Penn State 996 Michigan 996 John Hopkins 995 Maryland 994 Ohio State 985 Illinois -- Indiana -- Iowa -- Michigan State -- Minnesota -- Nebraska -- Purdue -- Wisconsin --

*Rank Order by Four-Year APR Score

All Division I Average 992 Public Average 992

NCAA ACADEMIC PROGRESS RATE INFORMATION

2017-2018 (Four-Year Data)

Big Ten Conference

Sport: Women's Soccer

Institution* APR Northwestern 1000 Ohio State 1000 Illinois 997 Minnesota 997 Nebraska 997 Wisconsin 997 Indiana 995 Purdue 995 Penn State 993 Iowa 990 Michigan 987 Maryland 983 Rutgers 983 Michigan State 981

*Rank Order by Four-Year APR Score

All Division I Average 989 Public Average 987

NCAA ACADEMIC PROGRESS RATE INFORMATION

2017-2018 (Four-Year Data)

Big Ten Conference

Sport: Softball

Institution* APR Michigan 1000 Illinois 997 Nebraska 997 Northwestern 996 Rutgers 996 Wisconsin 996 Indiana 994 Michigan State 994 Minnesota 994 Maryland 989 Iowa 986 Ohio State 984 Penn State 980 Purdue 966

*Rank Order by Four-Year APR Score

All Division I Average 986 Public Average 984

NCAA ACADEMIC PROGRESS RATE INFORMATION

2017-2018 (Four-Year Data)

Big Ten Conference

Sport: Women's Swimming & Diving

Institution* APR Northwestern 1000 Purdue 1000 Iowa 998 Michigan 998 Minnesota 998 Indiana 997 Rutgers 995 Illinois 993 Michigan State 993 Wisconsin 993 Ohio State 991 Penn State 990 Nebraska 989 Maryland --

*Rank Order by Four-Year APR Score

All Division I Average 993 Public Average 992

NCAA ACADEMIC PROGRESS RATE INFORMATION

2017-2018 (Four-Year Data)

Big Ten Conference

Sport: Women's Tennis

Institution* APR Illinois 1000 Indiana 1000 Maryland 1000 Michigan 1000 Minnesota 1000 Nebraska 1000 Rutgers 1000 Ohio State 993 Wisconsin 993 Penn State 992 Iowa 992 Purdue 992 Michigan State 987 Northwestern 985

*Rank Order by Four-Year APR Score

All Division I Average 990 Public Average 989

NCAA ACADEMIC PROGRESS RATE INFORMATION 2017-2018 (Four-Year Data)

Big Ten Conference

Sport: Women's Track & Field

Institution* APR Minnesota 998 Penn State 996 Michigan State 993 Rutgers 992 Indiana 991 Ohio State 990 Maryland 989 Michigan 988 Illinois 987 Wisconsin 987 Iowa 984 Nebraska 983 Purdue 957 Northwestern --

*Rank Order by Four-Year APR Score

All Division I Average 983 Public Average 980

NCAA ACADEMIC PROGRESS RATE INFORMATION

2017-2018 (Four-Year Data)

Big Ten Conference

Sport: Women's Volleyball

Institution* APR Michigan State 1000 Northwestern 1000 Purdue 1000 Rutgers 1000 Indiana 995 Michigan 995 Nebraska 995 Wisconsin 995 Illinois 994 Penn State 989 Minnesota 989 Iowa 984 Maryland 983 Ohio State 982

*Rank Order by Four-Year APR Score

All Division I Average 987 Public Average 986 Appendix N 12/03/19 Institution: Pennsylvania State University Date of Report: 05/06/2019

This report is based on NCAA Division I Academic Progress Rate (APR) data submitted by the institution for the 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 academic years.

[Note: All information contained in this report is for four academic years. Some squads may still have small sample sizes within certain sport groups. In accordance with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act's (FERPA's) interpretation of federal privacy regulations, data cells containing three or fewer student-athletes have been suppressed and are indicated by an * symbol. The information in this report does not reflect any changes to data made after this date.]

The following chart represents by-sport APR averages for noted subgroups. National aggregates are based on all squads that have certified their academic data as final.

Football Percentile Percentile Football 2017- All Champion Division I Multiyear Rank Rank Public Private Bowl Sport (N) 2018 Division - (Non- APR within Within Institutions Institutions Sub- APR I ship Sub- Football) Sport All Sports division division Baseball (297) 990 990 80th-90th 50th-60th 976 973 981 977 973 976 Men's Basketball 954 915 20th-30th 1st-10th 967 963 973 969 963 968 (351)

Men's Cross 953 1,000 10th-20th 1st-10th 982 978 989 986 977 982 Country (315)

Football (253) 979 966 70th-80th 30th-40th 964 962 971 968 961 NA

Men's Fencing 968 1,000 20th-30th 10th-20th 982 978 983 983 982 979 (20) Men's Golf 90th- 1,000 1,000 80th-90th 985 983 989 988 982 986 (297) 100th Appendix N 12/03/19 Football Percentile Percentile Football 2017- All Champion Division I Multiyear Rank Rank Public Private Bowl Sport (N) 2018 Division - (Non- APR within Within Institutions Institutions Sub- APR I ship Sub- Football) Sport All Sports division division Men's Gymnastics 994 1,000 50th-60th 70th-80th 989 989 981 988 1000 NA (14) Men's Ice 997 988 80th-90th 80th-90th 986 984 989 987 994 985 Hockey (60) Men's Lacrosse 992 1,000 70th-80th 60th-70th 982 982 982 989 985 977 (71) Men's Soccer 980 961 40th-50th 30th-40th 979 974 983 977 981 978 (203) Men's Swimming & 977 1,000 20th-30th 30th-40th 982 982 981 984 984 977 Diving (131) Men's Tennis 980 1,000 30th-40th 30th-40th 983 981 987 984 984 982 (253) Men's Track 966 966 30th-40th 10th-20th 973 968 983 974 969 977 (286)

Men's 983 977 30th-40th 40th-50th 986 983 990 986 990 985 Volleyball (22)

Men's 90th- 996 980 70th-80th 976 975 980 979 976 973 Wrestling (75) 100th Women's Basketball 959 957 1st-10th 10th-20th 982 979 988 983 980 983 (349) Appendix N 12/03/19 Football Percentile Percentile Football 2017- All Champion Division I Multiyear Rank Rank Public Private Bowl Sport (N) 2018 Division - (Non- APR within Within Institutions Institutions Sub- APR I ship Sub- Football) Sport All Sports division division Women's 90th- Cross Country 1,000 1,000 80th-90th 989 987 992 992 984 990 100th (348) Women's 90th- 1,000 1,000 80th-90th 991 985 993 995 990 983 Fencing (24) 100th Field Hockey 989 989 30th-40th 50th-60th 991 989 992 991 992 989 (78) Women's Golf 993 1,000 40th-50th 60th-70th 991 991 992 994 987 992 (267) Women's Gymnastics 955 981 1st-10th 1st-10th 993 994 993 993 994 997 (60) Women's Ice 997 1,000 80th-90th 80th-90th 991 988 993 992 994 994 Hockey (35) Women's 996 1,000 50th-60th 70th-80th 992 992 993 994 992 991 Lacrosse (115) Softball (295) 980 947 20th-30th 30th-40th 986 984 990 987 984 986

Women's 993 973 60th-70th 60th-70th 989 987 993 991 986 989 Soccer (333) Women's Swimming & 990 979 20th-30th 50th-60th 993 992 993 993 994 992 Diving (194) Women's 992 938 50th-60th 60th-70th 990 989 991 991 989 989 Tennis (314) Appendix N 12/03/19 Football Percentile Percentile Football 2017- All Champion Division I Multiyear Rank Rank Public Private Bowl Sport (N) 2018 Division - (Non- APR within Within Institutions Institutions Sub- APR I ship Sub- Football) Sport All Sports division division Women's 996 1,000 80th-90th 70th-80th 983 980 989 985 978 986 Track (338) Women's Volleyball 989 929 40th-50th 50th-60th 987 986 991 991 985 986 (333)

Appendix N 12/03/19 Appendix C – Graduation Rate Data

NCAA GRADUATION RATE RANKINGS, BIG TEN CONFERENCE CLASS OF 2011-2012, FEDERAL GRADUATION RATES

ALL STUDENTS ALL STUDENT-ATHLETES ALL STUDENT-ATHLETES ALL STUDENTS (2011-2012) (4-Year Average) (2011-2012) (4-Year Average) Northwestern: 94 Northwestern: 93 Minnesota: 87 Northwestern: 91

Michigan: 92 Michigan: 91 Northwestern: 87 Michigan: 81 Wisconsin: 87 Penn State: 86 (N = 28,470) Penn State: 82 (N = 103) Minnesota: 80 Penn State: 85 (N = 7,339) Maryland: 86 Illinois: 81 Penn State: 79 (N = 430) Illinois: 85 Wisconsin: 86 Michigan State: 80 Illinois: 77 Maryland: 85 Illinois: 85 Purdue: 79 Iowa: 76 Ohio State: 83 Ohio State: 83 Michigan: 76 Michigan State: 75 Minnesota: 80 Rutgers: 80 Ohio State: 75 Ohio State: 73 Rutgers: 80 Michigan State: 79 Iowa: 74 Purdue: 73 Michigan State: 79 Minnesota: 79 Indiana: 73 Nebraska: 72 Purdue: 79 Indiana: 77 Wisconsin: 73 Wisconsin: 72 Indiana: 77 Purdue: 76 Maryland: 71 Indiana: 69 Iowa: 74 Iowa: 72 Nebraska: 69 Rutgers: 69 Nebraska: 68 Nebraska: 67 Rutgers: 65 Maryland: 67

OVERALL DIVISION I: 66% OVERALL DIVISION I: 66% OVERALL DIVISION I: 68% OVERALL DIVISION I: 67%

Appendix N 12/03/19

NCAA GRADUATION RATE RANKINGS, BIG TEN CONFERENCE CLASS OF 2011-2012, FEDERAL GRADUATION RATES

ALL MALE STUDENTS ALL MALE STUDENTS ALL FEMALE STUDENTS ALL FEMALE STUDENTS (2011-2012) (4-Year Average) (2011-2012) (4-Year Average) Northwestern: 92 Northwestern: 92 Northwestern: 95 Northwestern: 95

Michigan: 90 Michigan: 89 Michigan: 93 Michigan: 93 Wisconsin: 85 Maryland: 84 Illinois: 89 Penn State: 89 (N = 13,762) Maryland: 83 Wisconsin: 84 Wisconsin: 89 Illinois: 89 Penn State: 82 (N = 3,763) Penn State: 82 (N = 14,708) Penn State: 88 (N = 3,576) Maryland: 88 Illinois: 82 Illinois: 82 Maryland: 88 Wisconsin: 88 Minnesota: 79 Ohio State: 80 Ohio State: 87 Ohio State: 86 Ohio State: 79 Minnesota: 77 Rutgers: 83 Rutgers: 83 Rutgers: 78 Rutgers: 77 Indiana: 81 Michigan State: 81 Michigan State: 77 Michigan State: 76 Michigan State: 81 Indiana: 80 Purdue: 77 Indiana: 74 Minnesota: 81 Minnesota: 80 Indiana: 74 Purdue: 74 Purdue: 81 Purdue: 79 Iowa: 71 Iowa: 70 Iowa: 76 Iowa: 74 Nebraska: 65 Nebraska: 63 Nebraska: 71 Nebraska: 71

OVERALL DIVISION I: 64% OVERALL DIVISION I: 63% OVERALL DIVISION I: 69% OVERALL DIVISION I: 68%

Appendix N 12/03/19 NCAA GRADUATION RATE RANKINGS, BIG TEN CONFERENCE CLASS OF 2011-2012, FEDERAL GRADUATION RATES

ALL MALE ALL FEMALE STUDENT- ALL MALE STUDENT- ALL FEMALE STUDENT- ATHLETES ATHLETES (2011-2012) STUDENT-ATHLETES ATHLETES (2011-2012) (4-Year Average) (4-Year Average) Northwestern: 91 Northwestern: 91 Penn State: 93 (N = 41) Northwestern: 91

Minnesota: 88 Michigan: 76 Purdue: 93 Illinois: 88

Illinois: 77 Minnesota: 75 Michigan State: 88 Penn State: 86 (N = 189)

Michigan: 76 Penn State: 73 (N = 241) Illinois: 87 Michigan 86

Iowa: 75 Iowa: 72 Minnesota: 86 Minnesota: 85

Penn State: 74 (N = 62) Michigan State: 69 Northwestern: 84 Ohio State: 84

Indiana: 72 Wisconsin: 68 Ohio State: 82 Purdue: 84

Michigan State: 72 Illinois: 67 Nebraska: 81 Michigan State: 82

Wisconsin: 70 Purdue: 66 Maryland: 79 Rutgers: 82

Ohio State: 69 Nebraska: 65 Rutgers: 79 Nebraska: 81

Purdue: 69 Ohio State: 64 Wisconsin: 78 Iowa: 80

Maryland: 64 Indiana: 63 Michigan: 76 Wisconsin: 76

Nebraska: 59 Maryland: 59 Indiana: 74 Indiana: 75

Rutgers: 52 Rutgers: 59 Iowa: 73 Maryland: 75 OVERALL DIVISION I: OVERALL DIVISION I: 62% OVERALL DIVISION I: 60% OVERALL DIVISION I: 75% 74% Appendix N 12/03/19 NCAA GRADUATION RATE RANKINGS, BIG TEN CONFERENCE CLASS OF 2011-2012, FEDERAL GRADUATION RATES

ALL AFRICAN ALL AFRICAN ALL AFRICAN ALL AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDENTS AMERICAN STUDENTS AMERICAN STUDENT- AMERICAN STUDENT- (2011-2012) (4-Year Average) ATHLETES ATHLETES

Northwestern: 90 Northwestern: 91 Northwestern: 93 Northwestern: 87

Michigan: 84 Maryland: 80 Minnesota: 86 Wisconsin: 70

Maryland: 80 Michigan: 80 Michigan State: 76 Michigan: 69

Illinois: 78 Illinois: 76 Ohio State: 72 Minnesota: 64

Wisconsin: 77 Wisconsin: 75 Illinois: 71 Maryland: 63

Rutgers: 74 Ohio State: 73 Penn State: 69 (N = 13) Purdue: 63

Ohio State: 73 Rutgers: 73 Wisconsin: 69 Penn State: 62 (N = 61)

Minnesota: 72 Penn State: 69 (N = 1,193) Nebraska: 63 Michigan State: 60

Purdue: 66 Purdue: 64 Purdue: 63 Illinois: 59

Penn State: 65 (N = 339) Minnesota: 62 Iowa: 57 Nebraska: 58

Michigan State: 65 Indiana: 61 Maryland: 56 Rutgers: 58

Indiana: 60 Michigan State: 60 Michigan: 56 Indiana: 56

Iowa: 59 Iowa: 55 Rutgers: 56 Ohio State: 56

Nebraska: 52 Nebraska: 49 Indiana: 50 Iowa: 42

OVERALL DIVISION I: 47% OVERALL DIVISION I: 46% OVERALL DIVISION I: 61% OVERALL DIVISION I: 58%

Appendix N 12/03/19 NCAA GRADUATION RATE RANKINGS, BIG TEN CONFERENCE CLASS OF 2011-2012, FEDERAL GRADUATION RATES

UNIVERSITY AFRICAN UNIVERSITY AFRICAN UNIVERSITY AFRICAN UNIVERSITY AFRICAN AMERICAN MALE AMERICAN MALE AMERICAN FEMALE AMERICAN FEMALE STUDENTS STUDENTS STUDENTS STUDENTS (2011-2012) (4-Year Average) (2011-2012) (4-Year Average) Northwestern: 81 Northwestern: 88 Northwestern: 94 Northwestern: 92 Wisconsin: 77 Michigan: 75 Michigan: 88 Maryland: 85 Michigan: 76 Maryland: 73 Maryland: 86 Michigan: 84

Illinois: 72 Wisconsin: 71 Illinois: 82 Illinois: 81 Minnesota: 72 Illinois: 69 Rutgers: 79 Ohio State: 78

Maryland: 71 Ohio State: 66 Ohio State: 77 Rutgers: 78 Ohio State: 66 Rutgers: 66 Wisconsin: 77 Wisconsin: 77 Rutgers: 66 Penn State: 62 (N = 517) Minnesota: 72 Penn State: 74 (N = 676)

Michigan State: 62 Purdue: 62 Penn State: 71 (N = 196) Purdue: 66 Purdue: 62 Indiana: 60 Purdue: 70 Minnesota: 64

Indiana: 58 Minnesota: 60 Michigan State: 67 Indiana: 62 Iowa: 58 Michigan State: 57 Indiana: 61 Michigan State: 62

Penn State: 57 (N = 143) Iowa: 55 Iowa: 59 Iowa: 56 Nebraska: 47 Nebraska: 47 Nebraska: 56 Nebraska: 50

OVERALL DIVISION I: 41% OVERALL DIVISION I: 41% OVERALL DIVISION I: 51% OVERALL DIVISION I: 50% Appendix N 12/03/19 NCAA GRADUATION RATE RANKINGS, BIG TEN CONFERENCE CLASS OF 2011-2012, FEDERAL GRADUATION RATES

AFRICAN AMERICAN AFRICAN AMERICAN UNIVERSITY AFRICAN UNIVERSITY AFRICAN MALE STUDENT- MALE STUDENT- AMERICAN FEMALE AMERICAN FEMALE ATHLETES ATHLETES STUDENT-ATHLETES STUDENT-ATHLETES (2011-2012) (4-Year Average) (2011-2012) (4-Year Average) Minnesota: 91 Northwestern: 87 Penn State: 100 (N = 3) Northwestern: 88

Northwestern: 91 Michigan: 67 Nebraska: 100 Maryland: 86 Michigan State: 82 Wisconsin: 67 Northwestern: 0 Ohio State: 83 Wisconsin: 69 Minnesota: 64 Rutgers: 88 Rutgers: 81

Illinois: 68 Michigan State: 61 Maryland: 83 Michigan: 80 Ohio State: 68 Purdue: 60 Ohio State: 83 Wisconsin: 79

Penn State: 60 (N = 10) Indiana: 58 Purdue: 83 Penn State: 78 (N = 18) Iowa: 57 Nebraska: 57 Illinois: 78 Illinois: 74 Michigan: 55 Penn State: 56 (N = 43) Minnesota: 67 Purdue: 73

Nebraska: 54 Illinois: 53 Wisconsin: 67 Minnesota: 67 Indiana: 53 Maryland: 52 Michigan: 60 Nebraska: 67

Purdue: 50 Rutgers: 49 Michigan State: 50 Michigan State: 56 Maryland: 42 Ohio State: 45 Indiana: 43 Indiana: 52

Rutgers: 42 Iowa: 42 Iowa: - Iowa: 44 OVERALL DIVISION I: 56% OVERALL DIVISION I: 54% OVERALL DIVISION I: 70% OVERALL DIVISION I: 67%

Appendix N 12/03/19 NCAA GRADUATION RATE RANKINGS, BIG TEN CONFERENCE CLASS OF 2011-2012, FEDERAL GRADUATION RATES

FOOTBALL FOOTBALL BASEBALL BASEBALL (2011-2012) (4-Year Average) (2011-2012) (4-Year Average) Northwestern: 100 Northwestern: 92 Illinois: 100 Northwestern: 100

Minnesota: 89 Nebraska: 72 Minnesota: 100 Penn State: 82 (N = >20)

Wisconsin: 89 Wisconsin: 72 Northwestern: 100 Michigan: 80

Illinois: 84 Minnesota: 71 Ohio State: 100 Minnesota: 75

Michigan State: 78 Michigan: 69 Purdue: 83 Iowa: 73

Maryland: 75 Indiana: 68 Michigan: 75 Illinois: 70

Michigan: 75 Michigan State: 67 Penn State: 71 (N = 7) Rutgers: 67

Iowa: 74 Penn State: 66 (N = >20) Iowa: 67 Michigan State: 61

Indiana: 71 Maryland: 66 Rutgers: 67 Ohio State: 56

Penn State: 64 (N = 14) Illinois: 65 Nebraska: 50 Purdue: 56

Nebraska: 57 Iowa: 64 Michigan State: 43 Nebraska: 50

Purdue: 55 Purdue: 64 Indiana: 33 Maryland: 39

Ohio State: 53 Rutgers: 55 Maryland: 17 Indiana: 30

Rutgers: 44 Ohio State: 44 Wisconsin: - Wisconsin: -

OVERALL DIVISION I: 62% OVERALL DIVISION I: 61% OVERALL DIVISION I: 52% OVERALL DIVISION I: 51% Appendix N 12/03/19 NCAA GRADUATION RATE RANKINGS, BIG TEN CONFERENCE CLASS OF 2011-2012, FEDERAL GRADUATION RATES

MEN'S BASKETBALL MEN'S BASKETBALL WOMEN'S BASKETBALL WOMEN'S BASKETBALL (2011-2012) (4-Year Average) (2011-2012) (4-Year Average) Iowa: 100 Northwestern: 82 Penn State: 100 (N = 1) Purdue: 91

Minnesota: 100 Wisconsin: 71 Illinois: 100 Minnesota: 86

Ohio State: 100 Indiana: 67 Iowa: 100 Penn State: 82 (N = 11-15)

Indiana: 67 Purdue: 67 Maryland: 100 Iowa: 81

Michigan State: 67 Iowa: 62 Nebraska: 100 Nebraska: 79

Northwestern: 67 Michigan: 60 Purdue: 100 Ohio State: 79

Maryland: 50 Minnesota: 57 Rutgers: 80 Michigan: 77

Rutgers: 50 Michigan State: 50 Minnesota: 67 Northwestern: 77

Illinois: 33 Penn State: 43 (N = 11-15) Northwestern: 67 Illinois: 71

Michigan: 33 Illinois: 43 Michigan State: 50 Maryland: 69

Nebraska: 33 Ohio State: 43 Ohio State: 50 Michigan State: 62

Penn State: 25 (N = 4) Nebraska: 33 Wisconsin: 50 Wisconsin: 62

Wisconsin: 25 Rutgers: 29 Michigan: 33 Rutgers: 60

Purdue: 0 Maryland: 25 Indiana: 0 Indiana: 50

OVERALL DIVISION I: 46% OVERALL DIVISION I: 47% OVERALL DIVISION I: 62% OVERALL DIVISION I: 63%

Appendix N 12/03/19 NCAA GRADUATION RATE RANKINGS, BIG TEN CONFERENCE CLASS OF 2011-2012, FEDERAL GRADUATION RATES

MEN'S TRACK & CROSS MEN'S TRACK & CROSS WOMEN'S TRACK & WOMEN'S TRACK & COUNTRY COUNTRY CROSS COUNTRY CROSS COUNTRY (2011-2012) (4-Year Average) (2011-2012) (4-Year Average) Indiana: 100 Minnesota: 95 Penn State: 100 (N = 5) Northwestern: 100

Michigan: 100 Purdue: 84 Michigan: 100 Rutgers: 100

Purdue: 100 Penn State: 83 (N = 16-20) Nebraska: 100 Nebraska: 96

Ohio State: 91 Michigan: 81 Northwestern: 100 Michigan: 91

Minnesota: 89 Indiana: 78 Ohio State: 100 Illinois: 87

Michigan State: 88 Michigan State: 75 Purdue: 100 Purdue: 86

Penn State: 83 (N = 6) Iowa: 74 Rutgers: 100 Penn State: 85 (N = >20)

Maryland: 80 Nebraska: 74 Wisconsin: 100 Minnesota: 85

Nebraska: 80 Wisconsin: 74 Michigan State: 88 Ohio State: 84

Rutgers: 67 Ohio State: 73 Minnesota: 85 Michigan State: 78

Wisconsin: 67 Illinois: 72 Indiana: 78 Indiana: 77

Iowa: 60 Rutgers: 70 Illinois: 71 Wisconsin: 74

Illinois: 50 Maryland: 67 Maryland: 67 Maryland: 72

Northwestern: - Northwestern: - Iowa: 60 Iowa: 71

OVERALL DIVISION I: 69% OVERALL DIVISION I: 67% OVERALL DIVISION I: 77% OVERALL DIVISION I: 76%

Appendix N 12/03/19 NCAA GRADUATION RATE RANKINGS, BIG TEN CONFERENCE CLASS OF 2011-2012, FEDERAL GRADUATION RATES

ALL MEN'S OTHER ALL MEN'S OTHER ALL WOMEN'S OTHER ALL WOMEN'S OTHER SPORTS SPORTS SPORTS SPORTS (2011-2012) (4-Year Average) (2011-2012) (4-Year Average) Illinois: 90 Northwestern: 88 Michigan State: 92 Illinois: 91

Indiana: 86 Iowa: 82 Purdue: 92 Northwestern: 91 Minnesota: 86 Michigan: 81 Penn State: 91 (N = 35) Penn State: 87 (N = >20) Penn State: 84 (N = 31) Penn State: 77 (N = >20) Illinois: 88 Michigan: 86 Northwestern: 84 Illinois: 76 Minnesota: 87 Minnesota: 85 Iowa: 80 Michigan State: 74 Northwestern: 85 Michigan State: 84 Michigan: 78 Minnesota: 74 Maryland: 81 Ohio State: 84 Purdue: 78 Ohio State: 71 Ohio State: 81 Purdue: 83 Michigan State: 72 Nebraska: 68 Wisconsin: 80 Iowa: 81 Maryland: 67 Indiana: 67 Indiana: 78 Rutgers: 81 Nebraska: 67 Purdue: 64 Michigan: 77 Nebraska: 78 Ohio State: 65 Maryland: 63 Nebraska: 76 Wisconsin: 78 Wisconsin: 63 Rutgers: 63 Rutgers: 75 Indiana: 77 Rutgers: 53 Wisconsin: 62 Iowa: 72 Maryland: 76 OVERALL DIVISION I: OVERALL DIVISION I: OVERALL DIVISION I: OVERALL DIVISION I: 68% 66% 76% 75%

Appendix N 12/03/19 NCAA GRADUATION SUCCESS RATE (GSR) RANKINGS BIG TEN CONFERENCE 2008-2011 COHORT

STUDENT-ATHLETE GSR MALE STUDENT-ATHLETE GSR FEMALE STUDENT-ATHLETE (4-Year Percentage) (4-Year Percentage) GSR (4 Y P) Northwestern: 98 Northwestern: 97 Northwestern: 98 Michigan: 93 Michigan: 90 Illinois: 97

Minnesota: 93 Minnesota: 90 Minnesota: 97 Illinois: 91 Penn State: 87 (N = 239) Rutgers: 97

Indiana: 91 Nebraska: 87 Indiana: 96 Penn State: 90 (N = 432) Illinois: 86 Michigan: 96

Iowa: 90 Indiana: 86 Nebraska: 96 Nebraska: 90 Iowa: 86 Iowa: 95 Wisconsin: 90 Wisconsin: 86 Purdue: 95

Michigan State: 88 Michigan State: 84 Penn State: 94 (N = 193) Rutgers: 87 Ohio State: 81 Wisconsin: 94

Ohio State: 86 Purdue: 79 Maryland: 93 Purdue: 85 Maryland: 78 Michigan State: 93

Maryland: 84 Rutgers: 78 Ohio State: 92

OVERALL DIVISION I: 87% OVERALL DIVISION I: 82% OVERALL DIVISION I: 93%

Appendix N 12/03/19 NCAA GRADUATION SUCCESS RATE (GSR) RANKINGS BIG TEN CONFERENCE 2008-2011 COHORT

AFRICAN AMERICAN AFRICAN AMERICAN MALE AFRICAN AMERICAN STUDENT-ATHLETE GSR STUDENT-ATHLETE GSR FEMALE STUDENT-ATHLETE (4-Year Percentage) (4-Year Percentage) GSR

Northwestern: 93 Northwestern: 95 Michigan: 100

Michigan: 90 Michigan: 87 Minnesota: 100

Wisconsin: 89 Wisconsin: 84 Nebraska: 100

Minnesota: 85 Minnesota: 83 Wisconsin: 100

Indiana: 82 Indiana: 78 Rutgers: 96

Maryland: 81 Maryland: 78 Indiana: 94

Illinois: 79 Michigan State: 78 Ohio State: 94

Nebraska: 78 Purdue: 76 Illinois: 92

Purdue: 78 Nebraska: 75 Northwestern: 88

Rutgers: 78 Penn State: 74 (N = 38) Maryland: 87

Penn State: 77 (N = 57) Illinois: 74 Purdue: 87

Michigan State: 73 Rutgers: 70 Penn State: 84 (N = 19)

Ohio State: 71 Iowa: 68 Iowa: 80

Iowa: 69 Ohio State: 60 Michigan State: 60

OVERALL DIVISION I: 76% OVERALL DIVISION I: 71% OVERALL DIVISION I: 85% Appendix N 12/03/19 NCAA GRADUATION SUCCESS RATE (GSR) RANKINGS BIG TEN CONFERENCE 2008-2011 COHORT

MEN'S BASKETBALL FOOTBALL GSR BASEBALL GSR MEN'S TRACK & ALL MEN'S GSR (4-Year Percentage) (4-Year Percentage) CROSS COUNTRY OTHER (4-Year Percentage) GSR SPORTS GSR Northwestern: 99 Illinois: 100 Indiana: 100 Minnesota: 98 Northwestern : 97 Minnesota: 89 Northwestern: 100 Michigan: 100 Nebraska: 95 Indiana: 92

Michigan: 87 Michigan: 95 Michigan State: 100 Illinois: 93 Michigan: 92 Wisconsin: 86 Minnesota: 94 Wisconsin: 91 Purdue: 90 Iowa: 91

Maryland: 84 Nebraska: 94 Purdue: 89 Indiana: 88 Minnesota: 90 Indiana: 83 Penn State: 91 (N = >20) Penn State: 88 (N = 6-10) Wisconsin: 88 Penn State: 89 (N = >20) Penn State: 82 (N = >20) Iowa: 88 Northwestern: 83 Michigan: 85 Nebraska: 87 Penn State: 84 (N = 16- Michigan State: 82 Michigan State: 86 Illinois: 82 Michigan State: 86 20) Nebraska: 82 Ohio State: 84 Iowa: 82 Iowa: 84 Ohio State: 86 Illinois: 81 Purdue: 82 Rutgers: 82 Michigan State: 81 Illinois: 85

Iowa: 80 Rutgers: 78 Minnesota: 77 Ohio State: 81 Wisconsin: 84 Rutgers: 78 Indiana: 69 Nebraska: 73 Maryland: 78 Maryland: 79

Purdue: 77 Maryland: 58 Ohio State: 70 Rutgers: 74 Rutgers: 78 Ohio State: 64 Wisconsin: - Maryland: 64 Northwestern: - Purdue: 75 OVERALL DIVISION I: OVERALL DIVISION I: 76% OVERALL DIVISION I: 82% OVERALL DIVISION I: 82% OVERALL DIVISION I: 87% 81% Appendix N 12/03/19 NCAA GRADUATION SUCCESS RATE (GSR) RANKINGS BIG TEN CONFERENCE 2008-2011 COHORT

WOMEN'S BASKETBALL WOMEN'S TRACK & CROSS ALL WOMEN'S OTHER GSR COUNTRY GSR SPORTS GSR (4-Year Percentage) (4-Year Percentage) (4-Year Percentage) Illinois: 100 Northwestern: 100 Northwestern: 99

Maryland: 100 Rutgers: 100 Illinois: 98

Michigan: 100 Minnesota: 98 Iowa: 98

Minnesota: 100 Indiana: 96 Purdue: 98

Nebraska: 100 Michigan: 95 Michigan State: 97

Rutgers: 100 Ohio State: 94 Indiana: 96

Wisconsin: 100 Penn State: 93 (N = >20) Michigan: 96

Indiana: 93 Nebraska: 93 Minnesota: 96

Iowa: 93 Illinois: 92 Nebraska: 96

Northwestern: 93 Wisconsin: 91 Rutgers: 96

Penn State: 92 (N = 11-15) Purdue: 88 Penn State: 95 (N = >20)

Ohio State: 92 Maryland: 85 Wisconsin: 95

Purdue: 92 Iowa: 84 Maryland: 94

Michigan State: 80 Michigan State: 79 Ohio State: 92

OVERALL DIVISION I: 90% OVERALL DIVISION I: 90% OVERALL DIVISION I: 94% Appendix N 12/03/19 GRADUATION SUCCESS RATE 2008-2011 COHORT PENN STATE RANKINGS, BIG TEN CONFERENCE

FEDERAL FEDERAL GRADUATION GRADUATION GRADUATION FOUR- GRADUATION SUCCESS SUCCESS RATE PENN STATE VARSITY RATE - YEAR SUCCESS RATE (GSR) - (GSR) RANKING - TEAMS DIVISION I GRADUA- RATE (GSR) DIVISION I (BIG TEN FOUR-YEAR TION RATE AVERAGE CONFERENCE) AVERAGE Baseball 82 51 91 82 6th (13) Men's Basketball 43 47 88 81 6th (14) Men's Fencing 80 74 80 93 2nd (2) Football 66 61 82 76 Tied for 7th (14) Men's Golf 78 68 78 88 Tied for 12th (14) Men's Gymnastics 91 88 92 92 Tied for 4th (7) Men's Ice Hockey - 66 100 90 1st (7) Men's Lacrosse 76 70 93 88 Tied for 2nd (6) Men's Soccer 58 58 94 85 Tied for 4th (9) Men's Swimming & Diving 80 74 83 88 8th (10) Men's Tennis 89 69 100 92 Tied for 1st (12) Men's Track & Cross Country 83 67 84 82 Tied for 8th (13) Men's Volleyball 56 75 63 87 2nd (2) Wrestling 80 56 100 78 1st (14) Women's Basketball 82 63 92 90 tied for 11th (14) Women's Fencing 50 78 71 91 3rd (3) Field Hockey 95 81 100 96 Tied for 1st (9) Women's Golf 90 75 100 94 Tied for 1st (14) Women's Gymnastics 91 86 100 97 Tied for 1st (10) Women's Ice Hockey - 78 100 97 Tied for 1st (4) Women's Lacrosse 84 81 95 96 5th (7) Women's Soccer 94 73 95 93 Tied for 10th (14) Softball 93 71 93 91 Tied for 10th (14) Women's Swimming & Diving 84 81 92 95 Tied for 12th (13) Women's Tennis 71 73 100 95 Tied for 1st (14) Women's Track & Cross Tied for 7th (14) 85 76 93 90 Country Women's Volleyball 87 71 93 93 10th (14) Appendix N 12/03/19 2018 FEDERAL GRADUATION RATE/NCAA GRADUATION SUCCESS RATE (GSR) NATIONAL COMPARISON

Rankings indicated on this chart are based on the (23) institutions listed.

GRADUATION ALL STUDENT- SUCCESS RATE ALL STUDENTS ALL STUDENT- ATHLETES (GSR) ALL STUDENTS 4-YEAR AVERAGE ATHLETES 4-YEAR AVERAGE 4-YEAR AVERAGE INSTITUTION (2011-2012) (2008-2011) (2011-2012) (2008-2011) (2008-2011) Penn State 85 (13th) 86 (13th) 82 (Tied for 5th) 79 (Tied for 6th) 90 (Tied for 10th)

Baylor 77 73 76 70 90

Boston College 92 92 82 82 95

California 91 91 79 70 82

Duke 95 95 90 89 98

Florida 88 87 63 63 85

Florida State 80 80 51 60 82

North Carolina 91 91 70 68 83

Notre Dame 95 96 92 93 98

Oklahoma 67 67 61 60 85

Pittsburgh 82 82 66 64 88

Stanford 94 94 96 94 97

Syracuse 83 82 70 72 92

Temple 71 70 67 74 87

Texas 83 81 68 68 88

Texas A & M 84 82 66 70 83

UCLA 91 91 79 73 90

USC 92 92 84 75 87

Vanderbilt 92 92 77 85 97

Virginia 95 94 73 79 92

Virginia Tech 84 84 64 67 92

Wake Forest 88 88 70 76 94

West Virginia 57 57 65 64 82 DIVISION I 66 66 68 67 87 AVERAGE

Appendix O 12/03/19 SENATE COMMITTEE ON LIBRARIES, INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGY

Software License Management

(Informational)

Background This informational report was requested by the Faculty Senate to outline how software at the university is licensed and how faculty can get access to software for the purposes of teaching, research, service, and outreach. This report includes how faculty can get access to software that is not currently licensed by the University. At Penn State, software comes in a variety of flavors, and how the software is licensed may be dependent on a variety of factors. The types of software licenses include, but are not limited to enterprise software, Penn State licensed software, departmental software, individual software titles, and software development tools. Software licenses are managed in several ways. For enterprise software, the license is negotiated on behalf of the entire university community. There are also software titles that may have been negotiated on behalf of a college or department. Both of these options have software licenses that are vetted through procurement, purchasing, legal, security, accessibility, and risk. The third is Specialized Software that may only be approved for specific uses. For example, the software might be approved for low-risk data, but not be able to be utilized for HIPAA data. There is also individual-use software that either has been or could be approved for use by a faculty or staff member. This process was outlined in the Courseware FERPA report provided to the LIST committee. Faculty seeking to use software should consult the resources below or their local IT personnel for guidance on where to access software and how to get more information if the software has not been vetted for full university use. Software License Management They are at least seven categories of software that Penn State IT helps to procure, support, and/or distribute: • Enterprise Software: These are software tools that are licensed for use by the entire university. The license and contract are negotiated for the entire enterprise. The costs for this software are paid for from central funds. These include Canvas, LionPath, WorkLion, Office 365, and Adobe Creative Suite. More information on these tools can be found at: https://software.psu.edu • Penn State Licensed Software: These are software tools that are licensed by the university but would have a fee that may be charged back to a department or college. These include Qualtrics, SPSS, and redhat. More information on these tools can be found at: https://software.psu.edu • Courseware: May or may not have a university-wide license. These are software tools would be used in the course of teaching or for course work. These include LogicWorks, Poll Everywhere, and Automation Studio. More information on these tools can be found at: https://sites.psu.edu/coursewarepsu/ Appendix O 12/03/19 • Individual Software Titles: These are titles that have been given an exception for use by the university. Users should complete a Software Request Form to utilize the software for university business. This form can be found at: https://pennstate.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_en6NEiMElsu35l3 • Open Source Software: As with vended software, open source software must be approved prior to installation on university-owned computers. Users who wish to use open source software should utilize the same Software Request Form utilized for vended software. This form can be found at: https://pennstate.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_en6NEiMElsu35l3 • The Institute for CyberScience (ICS) offers software specifically to support research at Penn State. These titles include MATLAB, R, and BamTools. More information on the ICS tools can be found at: https://ics.psu.edu/computing-services/software/ • Cloud computing resources including access to Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure have been licensed for university use. More information on the cloud services can be found at: https://www.cloud.psu.edu • There are software titles available in general purpose labs and classrooms that students can access free of charge. The full list of titles can be found here: https://lat.tlt.psu.edu/home/labs/software/ Faculty needing additional software in a general purpose computer lab can make a request at: https://lat.tlt.psu.edu/home/labs/software/software-requests/

SENATE COMMITTEE ON LIBRARIES, INFORMATION SYSTEMS & TECHNOLOGY • Fred Aebli • Mary Beth Clark • Jon Crutchfield • Barbara Dewey • Roger Egolf, Chair • Karen Estlund • Dace Freivalds • Galen Grimes • Grace Hageman • Mihoko Hosoi • Greg Madden • John Messner, Vice Chair • Jacqueline Reid-Walsh • Francesca Ruggiero • Jennifer Sparrow Appendix O 12/03/19 • Cristine Truica • Morgan Yelverton • Donald Welch • Alex Zhao

Appendix P 12/03/19 SENATE COMMITTEE ON LIBRARIES, INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGY

University IT Modernization Efforts

(Informational)

Interim Vice President of Information Technology and Chief Information Officer Donald Welch will present an informational report outlining the changes that are occurring in how Information Technology is managed at the University.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON LIBRARIES, INFORMATION SYSTEMS & TECHNOLOGY • Fred Aebli • Mary Beth Clark • Jon Crutchfield • Barbara Dewey • Roger Egolf, Chair • Karen Estlund • Dace Freivalds • Galen Grimes • Grace Hageman • Mihoko Hosoi • Greg Madden • John Messner, Vice Chair • Jacqueline Reid-Walsh • Francesca Ruggiero • Jennifer Sparrow • Cristine Truica • Morgan Yelverton • Donald Welch • Alex Zhao University IT Modernization Efforts Financial Impact Analysis

Salary increases Inflation Tuition freezes State appropriations

Expenses are increasing while revenues are flat. OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Financial Situation for Penn State IT

Structural deficit Two rescissions

Reserve will be depleted in less than 3 years.

IT SPEND = $242M

Central IT 41% Enterprise Stuff PM Office 33% 16% Staff 56% Distributed IT EPMO 43% 11%

WHERE HOW Overview

CHARGE: University leadership has charged the University IT community with reducing IT spending by $15M by FY 2022/23, in addition to adding $10M in value through cost avoidance and reinvestment efforts.

APPROACH: • Develop and implement a fair approach to reduce IT spend • Both a service-by-service approach and unit-provided ideas • Continue meeting strategic goals and One Penn State 2025 objectives

Our Big Question

How do we do what is best for Penn State and achieve our financial goals while contributing to One Penn State 2025 and the University’s strategic plan? OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Ways We Can Make Progress

• Core Service Consolidation • Contracts and Procurement • Attrition and Hiring Objectives A. Track financial benefits B. Increase alignment with strategic plan C. Improve operational efficiency D. Create IT governance

Identified Projects

• Integration Platform • Service Desk Migration • Track Financial Benefits • Data Center Consolidation • Improved Virtualization Service • Analyze Box Retirement • Enterprise Firewall • Mainframe Retirement • Virtual Labs • Application Consolidation • Security Enclaves • Re-baseline IT Spending • eSignature • Develop Communities of Practice • ServiceNow Migration • Email Commoditization EMAIL CONSOLIDATION (OFFICE 365)

DATA CENTER CONSOLIDATION

ENTERPRISE ACTIVE DIRECTORY

IT SERVICE MANAGEMENT

E-SIGNATURE

Our Commitment

• Partnership • Minimize impact on the University mission • Support strategic plan and One Penn State 2025 • Governance 101 Kern Graduate Building University Park, PA 16802 Phone: 814-863-0221

MINUTES OF SENATE COUNCIL Tuesday, November 12, 2019 – 1:30 p.m. 102 Kern Graduate Building

Members Present: M. Ansari, E. Boyer, C. Eckhardt, J. Hughes, N. Jones, B. King, J. Kirby, L. Mangel, K. McKinney, J. Nousek, J. Ozment, R. Petrilla, L. Posey, N. Rowland, E. Seymour, K. Shapiro, M. Stephens, and P. Thompson

Guests/Others: K. Bieschke, D. Blasko, P. Brown, R. Egolf, R. Engel, L. Pauley (for A. Sinha), K. Vrana, and M. Whitehurst

Absent: M. Bérubé, M. Hanes, R. Jolly, M. Jones, R. Pangborn, A. Sinha, and B. Szczygiel

Chair Rowland called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday, November 12, 2019, in 102 Kern Graduate Building.

The minutes of the October 8, 2019 meeting were approved.

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REMARKS

The Faculty Advisory Committee to the President November 12, 2019 with Provost Jones, and discussed the following topics:

1. Threatening behavior from students to instructors or T.A.s/G.A.s 2. Student access to mental health agents. 3. Communication during a crisis and post-incident. 4. Courtesy Appointments. 5. The Delphi Award. 6. Location of “new courses” in P&T dossier. 7. Follow up” Efforts to improve the working lives of Adjunct/Part-time faculty.” The next FAC meeting is scheduled for January 14, 2019. Please submit any topics for FAC consideration to any of the Senate Officers or the elected FAC members, Bonj Szyzgiel, Carey Eckhardt, and Rosemary Jolly. Remarks from the Chair

Chair Rowland discussed the results of consultation on the new draft policy of the University Survey Coordinating Committee to govern “large scale” surveying practices at Penn State. The aim of these policies was to reduce redundancy and improve the strategic timing of surveys while also increasing the quality and sharing of the data they collect. Seven Senate committees reviewed the draft policy documents, Faculty Affairs, Faculty Benefits, Libraries, Information Systems, and Technology, Outreach, Research, Scholarship, and Creative Activity, Student Life, and University Planning.

Feedback from the committees was, for the most part, positive about the policy; however, there were concerns, of a significant nature to the Senate, raised about the policy and associated process, procedure, and implementation. A memo, now on the Senate website, summarizes the feedback.

Vice Presidents’ and Vice Provosts’ Comments Provost Jones discussed work on preventing undue foreign influence. Penn State is seen as a leader in this space. Work is being done on the Budget; a communication announced a 1% rescission for all units which will bring in 11 million dollars, 16 million still needs to be found. A restructuring of the debt in the state retirement system could mean good news for Penn State. Enrollment is fairly stable across the state with more out of state students helping to balance fewer international students. At University Park there was a 1% increase and the campuses were down 3%.

Strategic planning continues. Seed grants were very successful with cycle 1 and 2 grants generating 9 million in external funding. There is some restructuring of governance committees. Three taskforces are forming; Tuition, International Students, and Undue Foreign influence.

Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs, Kathy Bieschke discussed ongoing executive searches. Vice Provost for Global Affairs-two candidates have visited campus and, they are close to bringing this search to a close.

Dean of the College of Arts & Architecture-two candidates have visited campus and we’re in the process of reviewing the feedback now.

Dean of the Libraries-this search is just getting underway.

The Chief Information Officer search is just getting underway.

The Visiting Scholars policy is in effect, and the process to approve Visiting Scholars was launched university-wide on 11/1/19. All Visiting Scholars should utilize the process. We have a website for the process, located at https://sites.psu.edu/visitingscholars/, and you can access the policy and host guidelines there.

A set of FAQs has been developed to help faculty with the sabbatical application process and those can be found on the website vpfa.psu.edu. Vice Provost for Educational Equity, Marcus Whitehurst discussed how approximately 80 students attended a discussion with Penn State leadership on the topics of diversity and inclusion at a breakfast meeting on Nov. 8, at the Nittany Lion Inn. The students were selected and invited at random and asked to candidly share their experiences and perceptions related to the current campus climate. Penn State’s overall enrollment was helped in part by a 21% year-over-year increase in the number of students from underrepresented minority groups in the undergraduate class.

Vice Provost of On-line Education, Renata Engel discussed how Google cloud will help add AI to advising services. World campus will implement an AI virtual advising assistant for the start of Penn State’s Spring 2020 semester. The system will first be set up to answer the hard questions, such as how to change major, change campus, and re-enroll in the University.

Chair Elect, Beth Seymour who serves on the Executive Committee of One Penn State 2025 discussed how Guiding Principles 1. Achieve Curricular Coherence, and 2. Design Relevant and Responsive Programs will need involvement by student and faculty senators.

Executive Director, Dawn Blasko, introduced the newest member of the Senate office staff, Emily Derr who is now in the position of Curriculum Recorder.

ACTION ITEMS

The Senate Calendar for 2020-2021 was approved by Senate Council after consultation with the Senate Committee on Committees and Rules.

The Unit Constitution Committee chaired by Senate Secretary, Judy Ozment reviewed and approved the Mont Alto Faculty Governance documents. The Mont Alto Faculty Governance documents were approved by Senate Council.

GRADUATE COUNCIL.

Kent Vrana reported that the Graduate Council has transitioned smoothly to shared governance. The report of the graduate school format and content was discussed. This report will likley come to the floor in the fall. Graduate Council will have their next meeting of this academic year on Wednesday, November 13, 2019.

SENATE AGENDA ITEMS FOR DECEMBER 3, 2019

FORENSIC BUSINESS

Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs. “Senate Input on One Penn State 2025’s Goal of Curricular Coherence.” A motion to place the report on the agenda was made by a Nousek/Ozment motion. 20 minutes was allotted. LEGISLATIVE REPORTS

Committee on Committees and Rules, Revisions to Senate Constitution Article II – Membership, Section 5 (Addition of World Campus Student Government Association). A motion to place the report on the agenda was made by a Kirby/Eckhardt motion.

Committee on Committees and Rules, Revisions to Standing Rules, Article II, (o) Committee on University Planning (Sustainability). A motion to place the report on the agenda was made by a Mangel/ Kirby motion.

Committee on Committees and Rules, Revisions to Standing Rules, Article III, Section 3: Joint Committee on Insurance and Benefits. After discussion it was decided to return the report to committee to clarify the suggested membership changes.

Committee on Committees and Rules, “Revisions to Senate Bylaws; Article 1: Officers”. A motion to place the report on the agenda was made by a Posey/Ansari motion.

ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS

Senate Committees on Admissions, Records, Scheduling, and Student Aid, Education, and Student Life, “Revision to HR-37 Grant-in-Aid for Dependents (Eligible Dependents and Limitations sections)”. Chair Rowland requested that the report be postponed to a later time.

Senate Committees on Faculty Affairs and Intra-University Relations, “Revisions to AC-25 Emeritus Policy (Formerly HR25)”. The report was placed on the agenda by an Eckhardt/Ozment motion.

Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs, “Revision to AC-76 “Faculty Rights and Responsibilities. The report was placed on the agenda by a Nousek/King motion.

Senate Committee on Libraries, Information, Systems, and Technology, “Email Policy.” The report was placed on the agenda on an Ansari/Stephens motion.

INFORMATIONAL REPORTS

Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs, “Mid-term report from the Task Force on Curricular Process Reform”. The report was placed on the agenda on a Nousek/Ozment motion. The report will be presented on-line.

Benefits and the Joint Committee on Insurance and Benefits “2018-2019 Annual Report on the Status of Benefit changes”. The report was placed on the agenda on a Nousek/Ozment motion. 15 minutes were allotted for presentation.

The Senate Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics “Annual Report of the Senate Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics, Academic Year, 2018-2019 (Division 1 Athletics at University Park)”. The report was placed on the agenda by a Ansari/Hughes motion. The report will be presented on-line.

Senate Committee on Libraries, Information Systems and Technology “Software License Management”. The report was placed on the floor by a King/Ansari motion. The report will be presented on-line.

Senate Committee on Libraries, Information Systems and Technology, “University IT Modernization Efforts”. The report was placed on the floor on an Eckhardt/Ozment motion. 15 minutes have been allotted for presentation and discussion.

Senate Committee on University Planning, “Budgeting at Penn State 2019-2020. The report was placed on the floor by a Hughes/Posey motion. Provost Jones will present the report. 15 minutes was allotted.

Senate Committee on University Planning, “Strategic Plan Implementation Progress Report 2019-2020.” The report was placed on the floor by an Eckhardt/Nousek motion. Provost Jones will present the report. 15 minutes were allotted for the report.

The motion was made by Eckhardt/Nousek to reorder the agenda to place the last two informational reports, Budgeting and Strategic Plan implementation at the front of the agenda during the Provost’s remarks. The motion was passed, and the agenda reordered.

On an Ansari/Seymour motion, the agenda was approved for the December 3rd, 2019 meeting of the University Faculty Senate. . A motion was made by Eckhardt/Kirby to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 3:05 pm. The next meeting will be on January 14, 2019.

Dawn G. Blasko, Executive Director 101 Kern Graduate Building University Park, PA 16802 Phone: 814-863-0221

Date: November 26, 2019

To: All Senators and Committee Members

From: Dawn Blasko, Executive Director

Following is the time and location of all Senate meetings December 2 and 3, 2019. Please notify the University Faculty Senate office and committee chair if you are unable to attend.

MONDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2019

6:30 p.m. Officers and Chairs Meeting – 102 Kern Graduate Building 8:15 p.m. Commonwealth Caucus Meeting – 102 Kern Graduate Building

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2019 8:00 a.m. Intercollegiate Athletics – 102 Burrowes Building 8:30 a.m. Committees and Rules – 201 Kern Graduate Building Educational Equity and Campus Environment – 315 Grange Building Faculty Affairs – 202 Hammond Building Faculty Benefits – 214 Business Building Intra-University Relations – 504 Agricultural Sciences and Industries Building Libraries, Information Systems, and Technology–510A Paterno Outreach – 114 Kern Building Research, Scholarship, and Creative Activity – 502 Keller Building University Planning – 324 Agricultural Sciences and Industries Building 9:00 a.m. Admissions, Records, Scheduling, and Student Aid – 203 Shields Building Curricular Affairs – 102 Kern Graduate Building Education – 110C Chandlee Lab Global Programs – 412 Boucke Building Student Life – 101A Kern Building 11:00 a.m. Student Senator Caucus – 114 Kern Building 11:15 a.m. Commonwealth Caucus Meeting - Nittany Lion Inn-Assembly Room 1:30 p.m. University Faculty Senate – 112 Kern Graduate Building 101 Kern Graduate Building University Park, PA 16802 Phone: 814-863-0221

Date: November 26, 2019 To: Commonwealth Caucus Senators (includes all elected Campus Senators) From: Rosemarie Petrilla and Michael Bartolacci, Caucus Co-Chairs

MONDAY, DECEMBER 2 – 8:15 PM 102 KERN BUILDING

Guest Speakers:

Renee Borromeo, Teaching Professor of Physical Therapy, Mont Alto Frantisek Marko, Distinguished Professor of Mathematics James Jaap, Teaching Professor of English, Greater Allegheny Rosemarie Petrilla, Teaching Professor of Physical Therapy Nicholas Rowland, Professor of Sociology

Topic: Strategies for Promotion for Commonwealth Campus Teaching and Tenured Faculty

Zoom Connectivity Information: Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android: https://psu.zoom.us/j/384648300 Or iPhone one-tap (US Toll): +16468769923,384648300# or +16699006833,384648300#Or Telephone: Dial: +1 646 876 9923 (US Toll), +1 669 900 6833 (US Toll) Meeting ID: 384 648 300 International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/bWAGfK2hj Or an H.323/SIP room system: H.323: 162.255.36.11 (US East) Meeting ID: 384 648 300 SIP: [email protected] ***************************************************** TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2019 – 11:15 AM ASSEMBLY ROOM, NITTANY LION INN A buffet luncheon will be provided at 12:00 p.m.

Agenda

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