For Information Only 
No Action Required


The UAF Faculty Senate Administrative Committee approved the 
following at its meeting #4A on May 31, 1988


MOTION (Passed Unanimously)
=======


((   ))  = Deletion
CAPS  = Addition


Interim amendment to the UAF Faculty Senate Constitution (subject 
to ratification by the Faculty Senate), ART XI, Sections 1, 2, 3 as 
follows:

Sect. 1. 	The ((appropriate Vice Chancellor)) CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE 
		shall have the right to veto actions taken by the senate...

Sect. 2	 Delete and rewritten below: and 3.

Sect. 2. 	ANY ACTION APPROVED BY THE SENATE AND VETOED BY 
		THE CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE MAY BE APPEALED TO THE 
		PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA SYSTEM 
		AND/OR THE BOARD OF REGENTS UPON A TWO-THIRDS 
		VOTE OF A QUORUM PRESENT AT THE NEXT SENATE 
		MEETING.


	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately

	RATIONALE: 	This action clarifies lines of reporting 
		authority between the Senate and the Chancellor's Office.



Signed:  David M. Smith, President, UAF Faculty Senate


------------------------------------------------------------

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #4A on 
May 13, 1988:


MOTION PASSED AS AMENDED  (Unanimous Approval)
==========================


FACULTY REVIEW

There will be yearly evaluations of all untenured faculty members 
and of all tenured faculty members at ranks below full professor. 
Full professors will be reviewed every three years. Each faculty 
member shall be responsible for submitting to his or her dean or 
director a professional activities report which has been reviewed by 
the department head and tenured faculty in the discipline. 
Individuals evaluating faculty members shall make an explicit G3 
statement on progress toward tenure and promotion in their written  
responses.(1)  These responses may in turn be answered by the 
faculty person.(2)  These documents will be on file as part of the 
faculty member's personnel record.


	EFFECTIVE: 	Upon Chancellor Approval

	RATIONALE: 	Yearly evaluations for faculty anticipating 
		tenure and promotion need to have explicit statements as 
		to the progress the faculty members are making toward 
		those decisions.  Additionally, faculty members familiar 
		with a candidate's discipline should work with deans 
		and directors in providing feedback on the progress of 
		faculty members toward promotion and tenure. The 
		review of tenured full professors does not need to occur 
		as often.



Signed:  John Leipzig, President-Elect, UAF Faculty Senate


APPROVED WITH MODIFICATION(S) INDICATED:  W. C. Thomas  Date:  6/3/88


(1)	Replace "responses" with "evaluations" - Needed to clearly 
	distinguish between evaluator product and faculty member 
	response. 

(2)	Replace next to last sentence with language requiring that 
	faculty be allowed to comment upon each level of review, as 
	follows:

	"Faculty members shall be given the opportunity to respond to 
	evaluations at each level of review."


-------------------------------------------------------------

FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY 
NO ACTION REQUIRED


The UAF Faculty Senate approved the following at its meeting #4A 
on May 13, 1988:


MOTION PASSED  (Unanimous Approval)
==============

Motion to refer back to committee -- The Tenure and Promotion 
procedures for resubmission of motions for the September meeting 
of the Faculty Senate. Part of the motion includes a full faculty 
convocation concerning tenure and promotion to be held prior to the 
October Senate meeting at which time action upon tenure and 
promotion procedures will be taken.


	RATIONALE: 	Senate members wished to have the following 
		issues considered by the Committee:


	1.	Drop all mention of "mentoring." 
	2.	Give options as to the number of levels of review prior to 
		the VCAA review. Specifically, two and three level 
		review options were requested.
	3. 	See if some level of coordination between review 
		committees is possible. Consider including a member 
		from each peer/college committee as a member of the 
		otherwise elected college/ university committee.



Signed:  John Leipzig, President-Elect, UAF Faculty Senate


-------------------------------------------------------------

The Fairbanks Faculty Senate approved the following at its meeting 
#4A on May 13, 1988:


MOTION PASSED  (Unanimous approval)
==============

The UAF Faculty Senate approves the proposal for MA in Professional 
Writing


	EFFECTIVE:  	Upon BOR Approval

	JUSTIFICATION:  See request attached



			----------------------------


Office of the Graduate School
305 Signers ' Hall (474-7464 )


MEMORANDUM

TO:		Carolyn Sampson
		Faculty Senate

FROM: 		Mary Ann Borchert
		Coordinator of Graduate Studies

SUBJECT: 	Approval of new program and new courses proposed
		by the English Department


The Graduate Council and Curriculum and Instruction II
Committee at their regularly scheduled meeting on April 28,
1988 approved the following proposals.

	1.	New Program:  Master of Arts in Professional Writing

	2.	New Courses:
			English 65l - Internship in Publishing
			English 673 - Professional Writing Workshop
			English 587 - Writing Professional Prose
			English 688 - Audiovisual Script Writing
			English 689 - Editing Prose


			-----------------------------------

Master of Arts in Professional Writing

IX.	REGENTS' GUIDELINES

				SUMMARY

The proposed M.A. in Professional Writing will be an asset to the 
Department of English, the University, and the State of Alaska.  
There is a need in the business community of our state for qualified 
writers to handle internal and public-related writing tasks.  The 
degree will enable English and Journalism majors, as well as those 
from other undergraduate backgrounds, to obtain an important 
credential in the job market.  Nationally, there is a trend toward 
introducing programs like this one, but no such program currently 
exists in Alaska.

Members of the local community such as Dr. William R. Wood and 
Kenneth Noblit, Managing Editor of the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, 
have urged the College of Liberal Arts to institute a Master of Arts 
in Professional Writing.  They indicate, and we agree, that there is a 
strong local need for professionally trained writers and editors.  
Furthermore, our market survey indicates a substantial need 
nationally for writers trained at the graduate level in a variety of 
writing and editing skills.  There are over 190,000 jobs nationwide 
for writers or writer/editors and employment in the field is 
expected to increase faster than the average for all occupations 
through the mid 1990's.  We have designed our program to meet this 
need.

The proposed Master of Arts in Professional Writing will prepare 
students to work as professional writers and editors in such 
settings as private and public corporations, government agencies, 
and research institutions.  The program will accomplish this in 
several ways.  During their training, students will take courses that 
encourage them to read with a writer's eye:  to understand the 
definitions and uses of many kinds of good writing and to 
incorporate techniques from these forms in their own writing.  
Students will apply this reading background to a series of workshop 
courses offering practice both in traditional academic forms of 
writing and in the rapidly-evolving genres of the professional world.  
As they move through the program, students will increasingly choose 
their own topics and forms while continuing to submit their work to 
the criticism and feedback of professors and fellow student writers.  
In consultation with their faculty committees, students will select 
an integrated program of electives from such departments as 
Journalism and Broadcasting, Speech and Drama, and technical fields 
relevant to the student's career plans.  

We are in a position to introduce this new degree with a minimum of 
adjustments.  The English Department already offers a graduate 
degree in Creative Writing, so that we need add only one faculty 
member to be able to offer the new M.A.  The new faculty member, 
replacing a retiree, will be a specialist in non-fiction writing with 
editorial and/or publishing experience.  The addition of this hire will 
insure our ability to offer the new degree.  He or she will be an 
expert in the writing of expository prose and will be able to assist 
with our composition and creative writing offerings.  We are in the 
process of hiring for this position, using an existing position 
number.


-------------------------------------------------------------

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #4A on 
May 13, 1988:


MOTION PASSED (Unanimous Approval)
==============

With regard to Draft #4 of the Statewide document on Promotion and 
Tenure, the UAF Faculty Senate is in opposition to the following 
principles contained within the document:

1. 	The statement of a 15 credit standard load. (Article X, title A, 
	section E, part l)
2. 	Lecturers being defined as having to be supervised (Article II, 
	section H)
3. 	The statement that research is to be totally supported by grant 
	funding. (Article II, section H)
4. 	The inclusion of instructors as a tenure track academic rank 
	(Article (X, title A, section C, part l) That certain tenure 
	procedures are barred from grievance. (Article "Y", title A, 
	section 5.) (and other locations)


	RATIONALE:

	1A. 	There is currently no standard credit hour load at UAF.
		The determination of load is linked to discipline and 
		level of teaching (graduate vs. undergraduate). 
	2A.	Currently, lecturers are hired on a semester-to-
		semester basis to fill teaching sections and are 
		reviewed and are hired by disciplines based on their 
		academic qualifications to teach with the same level of 
		supervision as other teaching faculty. 
	3A.	Currently research positions at UAF are supported by
		grant funding and/or state funding. This combination is 
		likely to continue and faculty designation as research 
		should not preclude that combination of funding. 
	4A.	The beginning title for fully credentialed members of the 
		professoriate is an assistant professor. Typically the 
		rank of instructor is reserved for individuals who are 
		asked to provide service to the university in only one of 
		the tripartite responsibilities associated with tenure 
		track faculty.  Often instructors do not possess complete 
		academic credentials to enter the professoriate and as 
		such should be placed on a fixed term rather than tenure 
		track appointment. 
	5A.	If a tenure or promotion decision is objected to on non-
		procedural grounds, then the correct avenue for recourse 
		should be an appeal through the current levels of decision 
		making. However, if a tenure and promotion decision is 
		questioned on procedural grounds, then that decision 
		should go to grievance rather than appeal.



Signed:  John Leipzig, President-Elect, Faculty Senate


-------------------------------------------------------------

The UAF Faculty Senate approved the following at its Meeting #4A on 
May 13, 1988:


MOTION PASSED AS AMENDED (Unanimous Approval)
==========================

A new faculty compensation system is urgently needed.


	RATIONALE: 	In terms of compensation, faculty in the UAF 
		system are falling behind their counterparts in other 
		universities.  The lack of a fair and equitable system of 
		faculty compensation was felt to be one of the major 
		problems in the UAF system.



Signed:  John Leipzig, President-Elect, Faculty Senate


-------------------------------------------------------------

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #4A on 
May 13, 1988:


MOTION PASSED AS AMENDED (Unanimous Approval)
==========================

The new faculty compensation system should be developed through 
close consultation between the Board of Regents and the three 
University faculty governance bodies.


	RATIONALE:	 This requests the Board of Regents to 
		convene a committee composed of representatives of the 
		three MAU's to develop a unified faculty compensation 
		system.



Signed:  John Leipzig, President-Elect, Faculty Senate


-------------------------------------------------------------

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #4A on 
May 13, 1988:


MOTION PASSED (Unanimous Approval)
==============

It is recommended that the issues of market-based salary 
adjustments and faculty compensation be separated and treated as 
distinct issues.

The issue of faculty compensation should be addressed through the 
development and implementation of a University-wide system of 
compensation for faculty. This system will identify and weight 
categories of compensation adjustment, including (but not 
necessarily limited to) continuing satisfactory service, cost of 
living adjustments, merit increases, and revision of the system of 
benefits. Future changes in faculty compensation will be proposed 
and made according to the agreed-upon compensation system.

Market-based salary adjustments should be addressed as a normal 
part of the University budgeting process through the system of 
budget reallocation and incrementation. Proposals for market-based 
adjustments in particular units should initiate as proposals for 
changes in the operating budgets of the units requesting the 
adjustments.


	RATIONALE:

	1)	The motivation behind the issue of faculty compensation 
		is assuring fair and equitable treatment for all faculty; 
		the motivation behind the issue of market-based salary 
		adjustments is assuring the competitive position of the 
		University in attracting and retaining qualified faculty in 
		certain disciplines that deviate from discipline-specific 
		market levels. These motivations are sufficiently 
		different that they cannot reasonably be included within 
		a single compensation proposal.

	2)	Proposals for market-based adjustments should initiate 
		as a priority of the units that would be affected.  A 
		system of review of budget proposals already exists, and 
		should be used to allow the specific units involved to 
		justify and advance their needs in relation to the 
		priorities advanced by other units of the University.

	3)	Proposals for Market-based adjustments and for changes 
		in Faculty Compensation should be advanced 
		simultaneously as separate (but not necessarily equal) 
		priorities of the University.  Funding of either of these 
		will not obviate the need for the other.



Signed:  John Leipzig, President-Elect, Faculty Senate