The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #61 on 
February 5, 1996:


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

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve the BFA in Theatre.


	EFFECTIVE: 	Upon Board of Regents' Approval

	RATIONALE:	See full program proposal on file in the 
		Governance Office, 312 Signers' Hall.



Signed:  Eric Heyne, President, UAF Faculty Senate    Date:  2/7/96


APPROVED:  Joan Wadlow, Chancellor 		Date:  2/8/96


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

	EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR THE BOARD OF REGENTS

	The Bachelor of Fine Arts is a professionally oriented degree 
designed to prepare students for careers in theatrical design.  This 
degree is also the usual prerequisite for graduate studies in theatre.  
The B.F.A. in Theatrical Design's main objective is to give a more 
thorough and concentrated focus into the various methods, bases, 
and applications of all theatrical design.

	Theatre UAF has unique opportunities open for our design 
students.  Our audience counts/house records are steadily growing; 
interest is rising and our program is expanding.  Through a 
portfolio/interview enrollment, the B.F.A. program presented here 
will aid in drawing in new students as well as in retaining those we 
have due to the larger demand of graduate schools requiring a B.F.A. 
of their applicants.

	Resources and equipment needs will barely be effected; in 
fact, in the long run, design faculty will be able to take on a more 
supervisory role in the design process; thereby allowing them more 
time to teach more classes.

	This program will aid the department's productions better, 
will supply a more qualified "labor force" for the mounting of 
departmental productions, and will aid the community by offering 
them (Fairbanks Drama Association, Fairbanks Light Opera 
Theatre,etc.) a variety of better-trained designers willing to work 
in exchange for resume credits.

	In conclusion, I feel that because all the pieces are already in 
place for the B.F.A. program in Theatre, we should take advantage of 
it and add the program to attract more students into our already 
growing program.


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

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #61 on 
February 5, 1996:


MOTION PASSED (w/o opposition)
==============

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve the deletion of the M.Ed. in 
College Student Personnel Administration.


	EFFECTIVE: 	Upon Board of Regents' Approval

	RATIONALE:	See full program proposal on file in the 
		Governance Office, 312 Signers' Hall.



Signed:  Eric Heyne, President, UAF Faculty Senate    Date:  2/7/96


APPROVED:  Joan Wadlow, Chancellor  		Date:  2/8/96


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

	EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR THE BOARD OF REGENTS

Program/Degree:

	M.Ed. - College Student Personnel Administration

Identification of Program:

	This program is designed to train educators to be able to 
function in student service positions in higher education.  This 
training would include specifically:  history, philosophy, and 
contemporary issues in higher education; management concepts; 
principles of educational psychology, measurement, and research, 
and supervised laboratory experiences in college student personnel 
agencies.

Reasons for Requesting Deletion of Program:

	This program has not been available for several years and has 
no students enrolled  The people who developed this program 
sequence are no longer at the university, and there is no intent to 
revive the degree sequence.


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

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #61 on 
February 5, 1996:


MOTION PASSED AS AMENDED (unanimous)
==========================

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the UAF Grade Appeals 
Policy as indicated below.


	EFFECTIVE: 	Immediately

	RATIONALE:	The existing appeals policy defines the letter 
		grades A, B, C, D, F and Pass as being subject to appeal, 
		while the I and NB are explicitly exempted.  However, as 
		the NB is a permanent grade, it too must be subject to 
		appeal.  It is recommended that Paragraph II.A. be 
		revised.

		The policy does not provide a course of action for the 
		case in which an instructor whose grade is being 
		appealed is no longer an employee of the university but 
		who is willing to participate in the appeals procedure.  It 
		is recommended that Paragraph III.A.5.c. be inserted.

		It appears that grade appeals committees are not always 
		making certain that the student's request for a review is 
		valid.  The committee recommends that the first 
		sentence of Paragraph III.B.4.c be revised.

		The present policy does not identify a clear course of 
		action for cases in which the instructor is either the 
		dean or the department head.  It is recommended that the 
		present Paragraphs III.B.3-6 be renumbered III.B.4-7, and 
		that a new Paragraph III.B.3 be inserted.



Signed:  Eric Heyne, President, UAF Faculty Senate    Date:  2/7/96


APPROVED:  Joan Wadlow, Chancellor  		Date:  2/8/96


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

[[   ]] = Deletions
CAPS = Additions

			GRADE APPEALS POLICY

I.	Introduction

The University of Alaska is committed to the ideal of academic 
freedom and so recognizes that the  assignment of grades is a 
faculty responsibility.  Therefore, the University administration 
shall not influence or affect an assigned grade or the review of an 
assigned grade.

The following procedures are designed to provide a means for 
students to seek review of final course grades alleged to be 
arbitrary and capricious.  Before taking formal action, a student 
must attempt to resolve the issue informally with the instructor of 
the course.  A student who files  a written request for review under 
the following procedures shall be expected to abide by the final 
disposition of the review, as provided below, and may not seek 
further review of the matter under any other procedure within the 
university.


II.	Definitions

	A.	A "grade" refers to FINAL letter grades A, B, C, D, F, NB 
		and Pass.  The [[NB (no basis) and]] I (incomplete) 
		[[designators are not grades and, therefore, are]] 
		DESIGNATES A TEMPORARY GRADE, NOT A FINAL GRADE, 
		SO IT IS not subject to appeal.

	B.	For the purpose of this procedure, "arbitrary and 
		capricious" grading means:

		1.	the assignment of a course grade to a student on 
		some basis other than performance in the course, or

		2.	the assignment of a course grade to a student by 
		resorting to standards different from those which were 
		applied to other students in that course, or

		3.	the assignment of a course grade by a substantial, 
		unreasonable and unannounced departure from the 
		instructor's previously articulated standards.

	C.	"Grading errors" denotes errors in the calculation of 
		grades rather than errors in judgment.

	D.	All references to duration in "days" refers to university 
		working days, which exclude weekends, holidays and days 
		in which the university is officially closed.

	E.	"Department head" for the purposes of this policy denotes 
		the administrative head of the academic unit offering the 
		course (e.g., head, chair or coordinator of an academic 
		department, OR THE CAMPUS DIRECTOR IF THE FACULTY 
		MEMBER IS IN THE COLLEGE OF RURAL ALASKA).


III.	Procedures

	A.	Errors by an instructor in determining and recording a 
		grade or by the university staff in transcribing the grade 
		are sources of error that can be readily corrected 
		through the student's prompt attention following the 
		normal change of grade procedure.

		1.	It is a student's obligation to notify the instructor 
		of any possible error immediately by the most direct 
		means available.  If this is through an oral conversation 
		and/or the issue is not immediately resolved, it is the 
		student's responsibility to provide the instructor with a 
		signed, written request for review of the grade, with a 
		copy to the unit department head and the dean of the 
		college or school in which the course was offered.

		2.	Notification must be received by the instructor 
		and/or department head within 20 days from the first 
		day of instruction of the next regular semester (i.e., fall 
		semester for grade issued at the end of the previous 
		spring semester or summer session; spring semester for 
		grade issued at the end of the previous fall semester).

		3.	The instructor is responsible for notifying the 
		student in writing of his or her final judgment 
		concerning the grade in question within 10 days of 
		receipt of the request, and for promptly submitting the 
		appropriate change of grade form to the Director of 
		Admissions and Records if an error occurred.

		4.	If the student does not receive a response from the 
		instructor or the unit department head by the required 
		deadline, the student must seek the assistance of the 
		dean of the college or school in which the course was 
		offered.

		5.	If the instructor is no longer an employee of the 
		university or is otherwise unavailable, the student must 
		bring the matter to the attention of the unit department 
		head who will make every effort to contact the 
		instructor.

			a.	If the instructor can not be contacted but 
			course records are available, the department head 
			may correct a grading error through the regular 
			change of grade process on behalf of the instructor.

			b.	If the instructor can not be contacted and 
			course records are either unavailable or indecisive, 
			the student may request a review following the 
			procedure outlined below.

			C.	IF THE INSTRUCTOR CAN BE CONTACTED AND 
			ELECTS TO PARTICIPATE, THEN A CONSTRUCTIVE 
			PARTICIPATION IS TO BE WELCOMED BY THE REVIEW 
			COMMITTEE.  THE PROCEDURES OF PARAGRAPH 
			III.A.5.a OR PARAGRAPH III.A.5.b WILL BE 
			INSTITUTED IF THE INSTRUCTOR WITHDRAWS FROM 
			PARTICIPATION.

		6.	There may be extenuating circumstances when the 
		deadlines cannot be met due to illness, mail disruption, 
		or other situations over which the student may have no 
		control.  In such a case, upon request from the student, 
		the dean of students, after review of supporting 
		documentation provided by the student, may recommend 
		to the grade appeals committee that the deadlines be 
		adjusted accordingly.  An extension of the deadline will 
		be limited to one semester but every effort should be 
		made to complete the appeal process within the current 
		semester. 

	B.	If no such error occurred, the remaining option is by 
		review for alleged arbitrary and capricious grading, or 
		for instances where the course instructor is unavailable 
		and satisfaction is not forthcoming from the appropriate 
		department head.

		1.	This review is initiated by the student through a 
		signed, written request to the department head with a 
		copy to the dean of the college or school in which the 
		course was offered.  

			a.	The student's request for review may be 
			submitted using university forms specifically 
			designed for this purpose and available at the 
			Admissions and Records Office.

			b.	By submitting a request for a review, the 
			student acknowledges that no additional 
			mechanisms exist within the university for the 
			review of the grade, and that the university's 
			administration can not influence or affect the 
			outcome of the review.

			c.	The request for a review must be received no 
			later than 45 days after the first day of instruction 
			in the next regular semester (i.e., fall semester for 
			grade issued at the end of the previous spring 
			semester or summer session; spring semester for 
			grade issued at the end of the previous fall 
			semester).

			d.	The request must detail the basis for the 
			allegation that a grade was improper and the result 
			of arbitrary and capricious grading and must 
			present the relevant evidence.

		2.	It is the responsibility of the department head to 
		formally notify both the instructor who issued the grade 
		and the dean of the unit's college or school that a request 
		for a review of grade has been received.

		3.	IF THE INSTRUCTOR OF THE COURSE IS ALSO THE 
		DEPARTMENT HEAD, THE DEAN OF THE COLLEGE WILL 
		DESIGNATE ANOTHER DEPARTMENT HEAD WITHIN THE 
		COLLEGE TO ACT AS THE DEPARTMENT'S REPRESENTATIVE 
		FOR ALL PROCEEDINGS.  IF THE INSTRUCTOR OF THE 
		COURSE IS ALSO THE DEAN OF THE COLLEGE, THE PROVOST 
		WILL DESIGNATE ANOTHER DEAN WITHIN THE UNIVERSITY 
		TO ACT AS THE COLLEGE'S MONITOR OF ALL PROCEEDINGS.

		4.[[3.]]	The dean will appoint a 5 member review 
		committee composed of the following:

			a.	One tenure-track faculty member from the 
			academic unit in which the course was offered 
			(other than the instructor of the course).

			b.	Two tenure-track faculty members from 
			within the college or school but outside of the unit 
			in which the course was offered.

			c.	One tenure track faculty member from 
			outside the college or school in which the course 
			was offered.

			d.	At the option of the student whose grade is 
			being reviewed, the fifth member to be appointed 
			by the dean will be a student or another tenure 
			track faculty member outside the college or school 
			in which the course was offered.

			e.	The campus judicial officer or his/her 
			designee shall serve as a nonvoting facilitator for 
			grade appeals hearings.  This individual shall serve 
			in an advisory role to help preserve consistent 
			hearing protocol and records.

		5.[[4.]]	The committee must meet within 10 days of 
		receipt of the student's request.

			a.	During this and any subsequent meetings, all 
			parties involved shall protect the confidentiality 
			of the matter according to the provisions of the 
			Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) 
			and any other applicable federal, state or 
			university policies.

			b.	Throughout the proceedings, the committee 
			will encourage a mutually agreeable resolution.

			c.	THE MANDATORY FIRST ITEM OF BUSINESS At 
			this meeting[[,]] IS FOR the committee [[will]] TO 
			rule on the validity of the student's request.  
			Grounds for dismissal of the request for review 
			are:

				1)	This is not the first properly prepared 
				request for appeal of the particular grade.

				2)	The actions of the instructor do not 
				constitute arbitrary and capricious grading, 
				as defined herein.

				3)	The request was not made within the 
				policy deadlines.

				4)	The student has not taken prior action 
				to resolve the grade conflict with the 
				instructor, as described under section III, A.

			d.	In the event that the committee votes to 
			dismiss the request, a written notice of dismissal 
			must be forwarded to the student, instructor, 
			department head and dean within five days of the 
			decision, and will state clearly the reasoning for 
			the dismissal of the request.

		6.[[5.]]	Acceptance for consideration of the student's 
		request will result in the following:

			a.	A request for and receipt of a formal 
			response from the instructor to the student's 
			allegation.

			b.	A second meeting scheduled to meet within 
			10 days of the decision to review the request.

				1)	The student and instructor will be 
				invited to attend the meeting.

				2)	The meeting will be closed to outside 
				participation, and neither the student nor 
				instructor may be accompanied by an 
				advocate or representative.  Other matters of 
				format  will be announced in advance.

				3)	The proceedings will be tape recorded 
				and the tapes will be stored with the campus 
				Judicial Officer.

				4)	The meeting must be informal, non-
				confrontational and fact-finding, where both 
				the student and instructor may provide 
				additional relevant and useful information 
				and can provide clarification of facts for 
				materials previously submitted.

		7.[[6.]]	The final decision of the committee will be 
		made in private by a majority vote.

			a.	The committee is not authorized to award a 
			grade (letter or pass/fail) or take any action with 
			regard to the instructor.

			b.	Actions which the committee can take if it 
			accepts the student's allegation of arbitrary and 
			capricious grading must be directed towards a fair 
			and just resolution, and may include, but are not 
			limited to, the following:

				1)	direct the instructor to grade again the 
				student's work under the supervision of the 
				department head,

				2)	direct the instructor to administer a 
				new final examination and/or paper in the 
				course,

				3)	direct a change of the student's 
				registration status (i.e., withdrawn, audit, 
				dropped) in the course.

			c.	A formal, written report of the decision must 
			be forwarded to the student, instructor, 
			department head, dean and Director of Admissions 
			and Records within five days of the meeting.

			d.	The decision of the committee is final.


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

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #61 on 
February 5, 1996:


MOTION PASSED AS AMENDED (w/o objection)
==========================

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the UAF Grade Appeals 
Policy III. B. 3. as indicated below.  


	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately

	RATIONALE:  	Currently, the UAF Grade Appeals Policy does 
		not specify how the faculty members of grade appeals 
		review committees will be selected.  The Faculty 
		Appeals and Oversight Committee functions as an appeal 
		body for issues of faculty prerogative, and thus grade 
		appeals are included in its mandate.  This motion 
		requires that the unit dean select two of the four faculty 
		members appointed to any grade appeals review 
		committee from among the members of the Faculty 
		Appeals and Oversight Committee.  If the student 
		requests that the fifth member be a faculty member, the 
		unit dean will also select that faculty member from the 
		Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee.  The unit dean 
		will appoint the other two faculty members on a 
		committee at his or her discretion.



Signed:  Eric Heyne, President, UAF Faculty Senate    Date:  2/7/96


APPROVED:  Joan Wadlow, Chancellor  		Date:  2/8/96


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

CAPS = addition

			GRADE APPEALS POLICY

III.	Procedures

B. 3.  The dean will appoint a 5 member review committee composed 
	of the following:

	a.	One tenure-track faculty member from the academic unit 
	in which the course was offered (other than the instructor of 
	the course).

	b.	Two tenure-track faculty members from within the 
	college or school but outside of the unit in which the course 
	was offered.  IF AVAILABLE, ONE OF THESE TWO MEMBERS WILL 
	BE SELECTED FROM THE MEMBERS OF THE UAF FACULTY APPEALS 
	AND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE.

	c.	One tenure track faculty member from outside the 
	college or school in which the course was offered.  IF 
	AVAILABLE, THIS MEMBER IS TO BE SELECTED FROM THE 
	MEMBERS OF THE UAF FACULTY APPEALS AND OVERSIGHT 
	COMMITTEE.

	d.	At the option of the student whose grade is being 
	reviewed, the fifth member to be appointed by the dean will be 
	a student or another tenure track faculty member outside the 
	college or school in which the course was offered. IF THE FIFTH 
	MEMBER IS A FACULTY MEMBER, THIS MEMBER WILL BE SELECTED 
	FROM THE MEMBERS OF THE UAF FACULTY APPEALS AND 
	OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE IF ONE IS AVAILABLE.

	e.	The campus judicial officer or his/her designee shall 
	serve as a nonvoting facilitator for grade appeals hearings.  
	This individual shall serve in an advisory role to help preserve 
	consistent hearing protocol and records.


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

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #61 on 
February 5, 1996:


MOTION TABLED (unanimous)
==============

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the guidelines for Faculty 
Role in the Evaluation of Administrators endorsed at the Faculty 
Senate Meeting #23 on December 17, 1990 as indicated below.  


	EFFECTIVE: 	Immediately

	RATIONALE:	These amendments delete from the list of 
		administrators to be evaluated those administrative 
		positions that no longer exist and add existing 
		administrative positions.



Signed:  Eric Heyne, President, UAF Faculty Senate    Date:  2/7/96


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

[[   ]] =  Deletion
CAPS  =  Addition


		GUIDELINES FOR FACULTY ROLE IN THE 
		   EVALUATION OF ADMINISTRATORS


1.	All faculty in a given administrative unit will have the 
opportunity to provide anonymous written input into the evaluation 
of their EXECUTIVE DEAN, dean or director, associate dean or 
director, deputy director, and department head.  In small units, 
interviews with individual faculty members may also be appropriate.

2.	A representative sample of faculty will be asked to provide 
written input into the evaluation of the [[Vice Chancellor for 
Academic Affairs and the Vice Chancellor for Research]] PROVOST.  
The Faculty Senate and its leadership will be included in this 
sample, as well as any ad hoc groups and individuals who have 
worked closely with the administrators during the time covered by 
the evaluation.

3.	In each evaluation cycle, a uniform procedure will be used in 
all academic units to obtain faculty input.

4.	The procedure for evaluation of the Chancellor is codified in 
Board of Regents' policy.  The Faculty Senate urges the Regents and 
the President to consult with faculty as a crucial part of this 
evaluation.

5.	The administrative characteristics that faculty will have the 
opportunity to comment upon will include at least the following:

	Administrative Tasks
		Building and maintaining excellence
		Resource allocation

	Leadership
		Maintenance of strong faculty morale
		Problem resolution
		Delegation of duties to appropriate colleagues
		Building a team
		Providing a means to involve department heads and other 
			faculty in decisionmaking
			Skills as a mediator between faculty and 
				administration/community/legislature 
			General leadership abilities

		Academic Contributions 

		General Comments