The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #17 on 
March 9, 1990:


MOTION PASSED (with 2 nays, 2 abstentions)
===============

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to replace the existing policy on 
selection of academic unit heads to the proposed policy on election 
of department chairs as follows:

1.	Election of department chairs shall be by a simple majority 
	vote of the vote of all tenure-track faculty and permanent 
	instructors of the respective department.  

2.	Department chairs shall be elected as representatives of their 
	faculty.

3.	Among other agreed upon duties, department chairs will have 
	access to the college-wide budget requests and allocations and 
	will operate as a college-wide budget committee.

				***************

	Follow-up:  The Faculty Senate is further charged with forming 
	a committee to determine the role, duties, functions, and 
	compensation of department chairs.

		EFFECTIVE: 	Upon Chancellor's Approval

		RATIONALE:	This new policy will enable 
			representative department chairs to assist their 
			departments in meeting the goals that the faculty 
			have determined to be important and will empower 
			department chairs to act on behalf of their faculty.  



Signed:  David M. Smith, President, UAF Faculty Senate     Date:  3/19/90


Approved:  [see following memos]


			***************

MEMORANDUM


TO:		David Smith, President
		Faculty Senate

FROM: 		Patrick J. O'Rourke, Chancellor
		University of Alaska Fairbanks

DATE:  		April 3, 1990

RE:  		DEPARTMENT HEADS MOTION--REQUEST FOR EXTENSION


I would like to request an indefinite extension in my taking action on 
the department head motion which I received in my office on March 
20, 1990.  According to Article XI, Section 1 of the Faculty Senate 
constitution, such an extension may be granted upon request by the 
chancellor and approval by the Administrative Committee of the 
Faculty Senate.

My reason in doing so is to engage in further exploration and 
discussion of the issues surrounding department heads/chairs.  I 
found the discussion at the Executive Council of March 28, 1990 to 
be revealing and useful in my consideration of the action.  However, I 
am also of the belief that, in its current form, I would be doing the 
University a disservice by taking final action either way.  One of the 
most telling observations that came out of the Executive Council 
meeting was the fact that we have the cart before the horse.  This 
was voiced by a number of people, and it seems clear that we need to 
scope out the role, duties, and functions of the department heads/ 
chairs and, from that, should follow the means of election/selection.  

I would also like to suggest that the senate committee working on 
this further elaboration work with a few of the deans and current 
department heads so that a fuller exploration of the issues, desires, 
and problems might be brought about.

If the Administrative Committee of the Faculty Senate is willing to 
grant such an extension, I would appreciate knowing of your decision 
before the April 13, 1990 Faculty Senate meeting.  Thank you.

PJO'R/clb

cc: 	Janice M. Reynolds
	Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs


				***************

MEMORANDUM


TO:		Patrick J. O'Rourke, Chancellor
		University of Alaska Fairbanks

FROM: 		David Smith, President
		Faculty Senate

DATE:  		April 9, 1990

SUBJECT: 	Department Heads Motion -- Request for Extension


On behalf of the Faculty Senate, the Administrative Committee has 
agreed to grant you an extension to act on the department head 
motion passed by the Senate on March 9, 1990, until such time that 
the Senate receives and acts on recommendations from the Task 
Force on Department Chairs.


cab


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

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #17 on 
March 9, 1990:


MOTION PASSED (17 ayes, 9 nays)
===============

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to establish the following [[policy]]  
PROCEDURE to consider requests to censure administrators:

	A.	An investigation for possible censure of an administrator 
		must be initiated by a petition signed by 25 individuals 
		with faculty rank.  [see attached, PJO'R 4/19/90]

	B.	There shall be an independent investigation by faculty of 
		the case against the person being considered for faculty 
		censure, including votes of no confidence.  Once a motion 
		to consider censure has been raised in the Senate, the 
		Senate President, in consultation with the Administrative 
		Committee, shall appoint an ad hoc committee of at least 
		three members of the faculty (members may or may not 
		be senators).

	C.	This committee shall be charged to thoroughly 
		investigate any and all reasons for considering the 
		action, and shall report within (30) days its findings 
		and recommended action.  The recommended action can 
		include remediation.

	D.	Upon acceptance of the ad hoc committee's report, the 
		Faculty Senate will act upon the committee's 
		recommendation.

	E.	Any motion and consequent vote shall be by secret ballot.  
		The vote of no confidence shall be by simple majority.  
		The vote will be followed by a communication of the 
		action to the Chancellor's Office, or in the case where 
		the Chancellor is involved, to the University of Alaska 
		President, for consideration and response.  The 
		appropriate administrator(s) [[shall]] MAY communicate 
		their response to the Senate within 30 days.


		EFFECTIVE: 	Upon Chancellor's Approval

		RATIONALE:	On occasion, the Faculty Senate needs 
			to address the issue of administrators who have 
			lost the confidence of faculty.  However, the Senate 
			has no policy which can provide a fair, deliberate, 
			and responsible procedure for considering these 
			cases.  This motion proposes such a procedure.



Signed:  David M. Smith, President, UAF Faculty Senate    Date:  3/22/90


Approved with Modifications Indicated:  Patrick J. O'Rourke  Date:  4/19/90

  *Approved as a procedure and in the spirit of the attached memorandum to 
Prof. Smith dated 4/19/90.  PJO'R


					***************

MEMORANDUM


TO:  		David Smith, President
		Faculty Senate

FROM: 		Patrick J. O'Rourke, Chancellor
		University of Alaska Fairbanks

DATE: 		April 20, 1990

RE:  		CENSURE PROCEDURE


I have approved, with the modifications contained in the motion and in this 
memorandum, the action of the senate regarding a procedure for censure.  
However, I did find the motion troubling.  Let me explain.

The senate has the right to take action at any time regarding any individual 
within the University including members of the administration.  Attempting 
to regulate how and when such an action might occur is something that I 
believe is not in the best interests of the University or the senate.  Many 
different issues can be involved including the severity of an action or the 
chronic nature of such actions.  The senate action came to me as a policy 
item, yet it seems inappropriate as a policy.  It also seems inappropriate as 
part of the senate's constitution and by-laws.  Thus, I have modified the 
action to reflect that it is a senate procedure for it is a means by which the 
senate will conduct its business.

I am further concerned that the action is out of context.  An investigation 
for possible censure is a very serious action and is one that should be 
utilized only as a last resort.  Yet, I find nothing in the senate action to 
indicate that other means of problem resolution have been explored.  There 
are other ways of correcting inappropriate actions within the institution, 
and I would hope that all who are part of the academy would utilize these 
means.

Let me address the specific items contained within the action.  With regard 
to Section A, there is nothing in the senate action which indicates the 
substance of charges for which a petition may be initiated.  Because 25 
faculty members might disagree with a particular action, is this sufficient 
enough cause to initiate such a petitioning?  If such is the case, chaos will 
reign because many actions taken throughout the institution will be 
controversial in nature.  A petition and investigation can be as damaging to 
an individual as a censure vote.

Regarding Section B, this mandates an independent investigation once the 
signature petition is received.  Neither the senate president nor the 
administrative committee appear to be given any latitude, rather, they "shall 
appoint" an investigating committee.  The institution would be better served 
if the senate president and the administrative committee had the latitude to 
determine whether or not the charges being alleged (if any) are serious 
enough to warrant further investigation.  

Under Section D, the senate is mandated to act on the committee's report, 
yet the committee might be of such a nature that no further action is 
required.  Additionally, the procedure does not mandate that the individual 
being charged has a right to appear either before the committee or the 
senate to answer the charges.  Additionally, there is no requirement that the 
investigations and deliberations shall be kept confidential.  The senate may 
be bordering on legal liabilities depending on how they carry out their 
actions.

Under Section E, it assumes that the only form of censure is by a vote of no 
confidence.  Censure could and should take other forms than just a "no 
confidence vote."  Yet, the implication is otherwise.  Again in this section is 
the same issue whereby the administrator is asked to communicate after the 
action rather than before it.  Further, if the action of the senate is against 
censure, why then should there be any further communication of this 
throughout the institution?

Given the reservations I have expressed, you might ask why I signed the 
senate action.  Despite the fact that I believe it is a flawed procedure, it is 
the right of the senate to establish any procedure it wishes in order to bring 
action against an individual in the institution that it feels it has cause to 
take such action against.  My personal belief is that you do not have a 
carefully thought-out, working procedure in this action and that the senate 
would be better served by rescinding its action and giving far more careful 
thought and consideration to the entire issue.  However, that is my opinion, 
and I endorse the senate's right to conduct its business as it sees fit.

PJO'R/clb
Attachment

cc:  	Executive Council


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

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #17 on 
March 9, 1990:


MOTION PASSED (unanimous approval)
=============

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to conduct a faculty referendum to 
provide an advisory vote on the Core Curriculum Proposal.  On March 
22, 1990, the UAF Faculty Senate will distribute to permanent UAF 
faculty the Core Curriculum Proposal, along with the following 
advisory ballot.  Completed ballots must be returned to the UAF 
Faculty Senate office by 5:00 p.m., Friday, March 30, 1990.  Ballots 
may be returned by mail, FAX, or VAX.  The Faculty Senate will vote 
on the Core Curriculum Proposal in its April 13, 1990, meeting.  (see 
attached for copy of ballot)

	EFFECTIVE: 	Immediately

	RATIONALE:  	While current Senate procedure does not call 
		for an advisory vote of the entire faculty on the Core 
		Curriculum Proposal, response to the proposal at the 
		level of schools and colleges and in the senate-sponsored 
		convocation makes it obvious that there is strong faculty 
		sentiment in favor of an advisory vote.



Signed:  David M. Smith, President, UAF Faculty Senate     Date:  3/22/90


				***************


		ADVISORY BALLOT ON CORE CURRICULUM PROPOSAL


Please answer each of the following seven questions:

1.	Do you favor implementation of the Mathematics Literacy
	section of the Core Curriculum Proposal?
								===== yes    =====no

2.	Do you favor implementation of the Communication Literacy
	section of the Core Curriculum Proposal?
								===== yes    ===== no

3.	Do you favor implementation of the Library and Information 
	Literacy section of the Core Curriculum Proposal?
								===== yes    ===== no

4.	Do you favor implementation of the Computer Literacy section
	of the Core Curriculum Proposal?			===== yes    ===== no
	
5.	Do you favor implementation of the Natural Sciences section 
	of the Core Curriculum Proposal?			===== yes    ===== no

6.	Do you favor implementation of the Perspectives on the Human
	Condition section of the Core Curriculum Proposal?
								===== yes    ===== no

7.	Overall, do you favor the Core Curriculum Proposal over the 
	current general degree requirements?			===== yes    ===== no


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

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #17 on 
March 9, 1990:


MOTION PASSED (unanimous approval)
=============

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to endorse the following motion 
presented by the participants of the General Assembly Governance 
Retreat, February 14, 1990:

	"We adopt, in principle, the concept of a council of presidents 
	and suggest that it replace the General Assembly as it exists 
	today.  The council of presidents would improve the 
	representation of the different constituent groups, while 
	resulting in a more efficient form of governance.  This 
	structure will allow direct access for student, staff and 
	faculty to the President and the Board of Regents on concerns 
	that are unique to those groups, and will provide an avenue for 
	joint consideration of issues that affect all constituent 
	groups.  This statewide organization would in no way dictate 
	how governance is organized at the local campuses."

	
	EFFECTIVE: 	Immediately

	RATIONALE:	As an outcome of the systemwide governance 
		retreat, the faculty, staff, and student presidents have 
		requested that each local constituent body at the three 
		universities consider this motion which would begin a 
		process to change the statewide governance structure.



Signed:  David M. Smith, President, UAF Faculty Senate     Date:  3/22/90


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

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #17 on 
March 9, 1990:


MOTION PASSED (unanimous approval)
=============

A UAF undergraduate minor shall consist of at least 15 hours of 
coursework to be designated by each discipline or department 
offering a minor.  Such designation shall specify whether courses 
used to fulfill minor degree requirements may be used at the same 
time to fill major or general distribution requirements.

	EFFECTIVE: 	September 1991; earlier, by petition

	RATIONALE:  	Since UAF began offering bachelor of science 
		majors the option of obtaining a minor, there has been 
		some confusion as to the content and requirements of 
		minors among different academic disciplines.  
		Implementation of this motion would eliminate confusion 
		and give academic disciplines the freedom as well as the 
		obligation to determine minor degree requirements.



Signed:  David M. Smith, President, UAF Faculty Senate     Date:  3/22/90

Approved:  Pat O'Rourke, Chancellor  		Date:  4/19/90


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

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #17 on 
March 9, 1990:


MOTION PASSED (unanimous approval)
===============

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to establish a Task Force on Lecturers 
and Research Associates/Assistants, with the membership and 
charge indicated below.

MEMBERSHIP
===========

Jean Anderson
Lecturer - Assistant Professor
College of Liberal Arts

Wendy Esmailka
Director, Interior Campus
College of Rural Alaska

DeAnne Hallsten
Associate Professor
School of Career and Continuing Education

Stephen Jewett
Research Associate
School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences 

Lola Oliver
Laboratory Supervisor
School of Agriculture and Land Resources Management

Nag Rao
Professor
College of Rural Alaska

David Spell
Assistant Professor
School of Engineering


CHARGE
=======

The Task Force on Lecturers and Research Associates/Assistants is 
charged with addressing the following issues and forwarding 
recommendations to the Senate at its April 1990 meeting:

1.	How much teaching is being undertaken by temporary part-time 
	faculty?  How high a percentage is it in certain colleges and 
	disciplines?

2.	How much research is being undertaken by research associates 
	and assistants?  How high a percentage is it in certain 
	colleges and disciplines?

3.	How are these persons selected and how are they integrated (if 
	at all) into the department structure?

4.	How are these persons remunerated and what other benefits (if 
	any) do they derive from University affiliation?

5.	How much turnover do we have in these positions and what 
	implications does this have for academic integrity at UAF?

6.	How can the Faculty Senate and/or  Staff Council better 
	represent the temporary part-time faculty and the research 
	associates/assistants?

7.	What policies involving the part-time faculty and staff in 
	research and teaching positions at the University should be 
	considered by the Faculty Senate?


		EFFECTIVE:	Immediately



Signed:  David M. Smith, President, UAF Faculty Senate     Date:  3/22/90


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

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #17 on 
March 9, 1990:


MOTION PASSED (with 1 nay)
=============

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to refer to the Faculty Affairs 
Committee the motion regarding separating the EEO function from 
the hiring authority and instructs the committee to address the 
spirit of the original motion and recommend action at a future 
Senate meeting.



Signed:  David M. Smith, President, UAF Faculty Senate     Date:  3/22/90


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

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #17 on 
March 9, 1990:


MOTION PASSED  
=============

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to refer to the Task Force on 
Lecturers and Research Associates/Assistants for further 
consideration the motion to amend bylaws regarding Senate 
representation of research associate/ assistants.  The task force 
will present its recommendation on the motion at the next Senate 
meeting.



Signed:  David M. Smith, President, UAF Faculty Senate     Date:  3/22/90


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

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #17 on 
March 9, 1990:


MOTION PASSED (unanimous approval)
=============

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to reaffirm its position that if the 
statewide governance structure is not changed, the Senate will 
disassociate itself from the General Assembly.



Signed:  David M. Smith, President, UAF Faculty Senate     Date:  3/22/90