The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting # 81 
on September 14, 1998:


MOTION PASSED (without objection)
==============

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to establish the membership on the 
Ad Hoc Committee on Unit Criteria consisting of one member from 
each of the following Senate committees:  Curricular Affairs, 
Faculty & Scholarly Affairs; Graduate & Professional Curricular 
Affairs; Faculty Development, Assessment, and Improvement; and 
Service Committee.

	Alexandra Fitts, Curricular Affairs
	John Olson, Faculty & Scholarly Affairs
	Michael Whalen, Graduate & Professional Curricular Affairs
	David Porter, Faculty Develop., Assessment, & Improvement
	Deborah McLean-Nelson, Service


	EFFECTIVE: 	Immediately



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

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting # 81 
on September 14, 1998:


MOTION
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to establish an Ad Hoc Committee 
on Out-of-Class Learning.  Membership will consist of:  

	Maynard Perkins, Northwest Campus
	John Fellerath, Student Services
	Jean Richardson, ASUAF
	Rick Goeb, Athletics & Recreation
	James Bicigo, Theatre/Music/Arts
	Lisa Lehman, Library


	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately

	RATIONALE:  	UAF's Evaluation Of Educational 
		Effectiveness Policy includes an Evaluation of Out of 
		Class Learning--"An important element of a student's 
		overall education is learning that occurs outside of 
		classes.  Therefore, an evaluation of activities and 
		student support services will be conducted."  This 
		evaluation should be faculty driven.



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

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting # 81 
on September 14, 1998:


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

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to postpone action on the proposed 
Regents' Policy and University Regulation 09.99.01--Recreational 
and Intercollegiate Athletics until the October 12, 1998 meeting.


	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately



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

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting # 81 
on September 14, 1998:


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

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to send the motion on the 1999-
2000 Academic Calendar as presented by the Registrar to 
Curricular Affairs for their consideration and recommendation.


	EFFECTIVE: 	Immediately



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

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting # 81 
on September 14, 1998:


MOTION PASSED (without objection)
==============

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend Section 3 (Article V:  
Committees, Permanent) of the Bylaws by deleting E.1. (The 
University Wide Promotion and Tenure Committee) and 
renumbering  the remaining sections as appropriate.


	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately

	RATIONALE:  	Procedures for retention, promotion, 
		tenure, and post tenure review will be determined 
		by union contract.  The current contracts do require 
		a MAU Peer Review Committee but the Senate's role 
		is only to submit a slate of names for this committee.  
		The MAU Peer Review Committee is not structured as 
		a Senate Committee.  The Senate's role in the 
		evaluation process will be delineated in ensuing 
		motions.



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

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting # 81 
on September 14, 1998:


MOTION PASSED (without objection)
==============

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the title of Section IV of 
the UAF Faculty Appointment and Evaluation Policies and 
Regulations for the Evaluation of Faculty as follows: 


[[   ]]  =  Deletion
CAPS =  Addition

IV.	[[Consideration of faculty]] EVALUATION PROCESS for 
	RETENTION, promotion [[and/or]], tenure, AND POST 
	TENURE REVIEW


	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately

	RATIONALE:  	The above is contract language and is 
		consistent with the intent of this section.



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

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting # 81 
on September 14, 1998:


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

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend Section IV. B. (Faculty 
with Academic Rank) of the UAF Faculty Appointment and 
Evaluation Policies and Regulations for the Evaluation of Faculty 
as follows: 


[[   ]]  =  Deletion
CAPS =  Addition


B.	Faculty with Academic Rank

	1.	Criteria and Eligibility.  A record of continuing 
		effective performance shall be expected  [[with 
		emphasis on the record of achievement since the 
		latest promotion in rank]].   PROCEDURES, 
		[[P]]performance criteria and requirements [[for 
		eligibility for promotion and/or tenure]] are set 
		forth in THE APPLICABLE UNION CONTRACTS, UAF 
		Faculty Policies, [[Chapter IV,]] and in policies of the 
		Board of Regents and the regulations of the University 
		system currently in effect and as they may change.


	3.	d.	[[Constitution and Operation of University-
			wide Promotion and Tenure Committee.  The 
			University-wide Promotion and Tenure 
			Committee will be composed of twelve 
			representatives; three from the College 
			of Liberal Arts (one each from education, 
			humanities, and social sciences); three 
			from the College of Science, Engineering and 
			Mathematics (one from each area); three from 
			the College of Resource Development and 
			Management (one each from the schools of 
			management, agriculture and land resources 
			management, and mineral engineering; and one 
			each from the School of Fisheries and Ocean 
			Sciences, Alaska Cooperative Extension and 
			College of Rural Alaska.  (Revised by the Senate 
			and Approved by the Chancellor 3/26/97)

			Additionally, the chair of the unit peer review 
			committee for each candidate or another 
			committee member designated by the chair will 
			sit as an ad hoc, non-voting member of the 
			university-wide committee during the review 
			of candidates from that unit.  The chair of the 
			unit peer review committee or a designee may 
			participate in the discussion of the candidate's 
			application for promotion or tenure and will 
			present the file to the university-wide 
			committee.  (Revised by Senate and Approved 
			by the Chancellor 10/21/91)

			Each college's/school's representative to the 
			university-wide committee will be elected by 
			the faculty of that college/school during the 
			spring semester.  One alternate will also be 
			elected.  Terms of service on the committee will 
			be three years, with the terms being staggered 
			so that continuity between committees is 
			maintained.  All representatives must be tenured 
			and hold the rank of either associate professor 
			or professor.

			The committee shall elect a chair from its 
			membership.  The committee shall establish 
			operating rules and procedures in a public 
			meeting and file these with the Chancellor's 
			Office.

			Voting members of the university-wide 
			committee shall not serve on any committee, 
			or have input at any other level of review, 
			related to promotion or tenure.

			The discussion regarding a candidate's file shall 
			be held in executive session, unless the 
			candidate requests an open meeting.  The voting 
			process shall be conducted in such a manner that 
			the public may know the vote of each person 
			entitled to vote.]]


			CONSTITUTION AND OPERATION OF THE 
			UNIVERSITY-WIDE PEER REVIEW COMMITTEES. 

			(1)	FOR THE PURPOSE OF EVALUATION FOR 
				TENURE AND/OR PROMOTION OF MEMBERS 
				OF THE UNITED ACADEMICS BARGAINING 
				UNIT, A LIST OF THE NAMES OF SEVEN 
				TENURED UNIT MEMBERS WILL BE 
				PRESENTED TO THE PROVOST WHO WILL 
				SELECT THE COMMITTEE OR COMMITTEES.  
				EACH UNIT PEER REVIEW COMMITTEE MAY 
				NOMINATE ONE OF ITS MEMBERS TO SERVE.  
				THE LIST WILL BE DETERMINED FROM THOSE 
				NOMINEES BY VOTE OF ALL FACULTY WHO 
				SERVE ON UNIT PEER REVIEW COMMITTEES.  
				FACULTY SHALL REMAIN ON THE LIST FOR A 
				TERM OF TWO YEARS WITH THE TERMS BEING 
				STAGGERED.  NO SPECIFIC PEER REVIEW 
				COMMITTEE CAN BE REPRESENTED BY MORE 
				THAN ONE PERSON.  A FACULTY MEMBER MAY 
				NOT STAND FOR PROMOTION DURING THE 
				TERM OF APPOINTMENT TO THE LIST.

			(2)	FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRE OR POST TENURE 
				EVALUATION OF MEMBERS OF THE UNITED 
				ACADEMICS BARGAINING UNIT, A LIST OF 
				THE NAMES OF SEVEN  FACULTY MEMBERS 
				WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE PROVOST WHO 
				WILL SELECT THE COMMITTEE OR COMMITTEES.  
				EACH UNIT PEER REVIEW COMMITTEE MAY 
				NOMINATE ONE OF ITS MEMBERS TO SERVE.  
				THE LIST WILL BE DETERMINED FROM THOSE 
				NOMINEES BY VOTE OF ALL FACULTY WHO 
				SERVE ON UNIT PEER REVIEW COMMITTEES.  
				FACULTY SHALL REMAIN ON THE LIST FOR A 
				TERM OF TWO YEARS WITH THE TERMS 
				BEING STAGGERED.  NO MORE THAN ONE 
				FACULTY MEMBER ON THE LIST CAN BE A 
				MEMBER OF ANY SPECIFIC PEER REVIEW 
				COMMITTEE.  A FACULTY MEMBER MAY NOT 
				STAND  FOR POST TENURE REVUE DURING 
				THE TERM OF APPOINTMENT TO THE LIST.

			(3)	FOR THE PURPOSE OF EVALUATION FOR 
				TENURE AND/OR PROMOTION OF MEMBERS 
				OF THE ACCFT BARGAINING UNIT, A LIST 
				OF THE NAMES OF NINE FACULTY MEMBERS 
				WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE PROVOST WHO 
				WILL SELECT THE COMMITTEE OR COMMITTEES.  
				THE LIST WILL BE SELECTED FROM THE 
				TENURED FACULTY IN THE ACCFT BARGAINING 
				UNIT BY VOTE OF THOSE FACULTY.  FACULTY 
				SHALL REMAIN ON THE LIST FOR A TERM OF 
				TWO YEARS WITH THE TERMS BEING 
				STAGGERED. .  A FACULTY MEMBER MAY NOT 
				STAND FOR PROMOTION DURING THE TERM 
				OF APPOINTMENT TO THE LIST.  THE 
				PROVOST WILL APPOINT TWO MEMBERS 
				FROM THE UNITED ACADEMICS UNIVERSITY-
				WIDE PROMOTION/TENURE COMMITTEE TO 
				SERVE ON THE ACCFT PROMOTION/TENURE 
				COMMITTEE.

		[[e. 	Candidate Review    ]]


	EFFECTIVE: 	Immediately

	RATIONALE:  	Procedures for retention, promotion, 
		tenure and post tenure review will be determined by 
		union contract.  The current contracts do require a 
		MAU Peer Review Committee but the Senate's role is 
		only to submit a slate of names for this committee.  
		Section B.3.d. specifies the derivation of that slate of 
		names.  The MAU Peer Review Committee slate is 
		based on unit peer review committees in the belief 
		that, while there may be modifications to the contract 
		mandated procedures, unit peer review committees in 
		some form will remain in future instantiations.  This 
		basis, rather than that of college/school, removes the 
		slate selection from the vagaries of administrative 
		reorganization (over which the Senate has no 
		authority) while retaining a slate that represents a 
		cross section of the University.  We recommend that 
		the provost should appoint all seven faculty on the 
		lists (for (1) and (2)) to the respective committees.  
		We also recommend that a faculty member who has 
		taken part in a decision at the unit peer review level 
		abstain from voting at the MAU peer level.  It is the 
		intent tradition dictates this practice.  

		We further realize that other sections of the policy 
		need to be revisited at a later date.