The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting # 83 on 
November 16, 1998:


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

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve the Unit Criteria for Music.  


	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately

			Upon Chancellor Approval


	RATIONALE:  	The committee assessed the unit criteria 
		submitted by the Music Department.  With 
		some minor changes, agreed upon by the department 
		representative, David Stech, the unit criteria were 
		found to be consistent with UAF guidelines.


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

				  UNIT CRITERIA

		for Evaluation of Faculty for Promotion and Tenure

				Department of Music
			  University of Alaska Fairbanks


STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.

	These unit criteria are to supplement the University of 
Alaska Fairbanks Policies and Regulations for the Evaluation of 
Faculty for Promotion and Tenure (hereafter referred to as the 
"University Policies and Regulations") and to clarify their 
application to faculty of the UAF Department of Music.  These unit 
criteria are subordinate to the University Policies and Regulations.


INTRODUCTION.

	These criteria define for the University Promotion/Tenure 
Review Committee the kinds of music performance and conducting 
events that are most appropriately assigned to the categories of 
Teaching, Research and Service.

 	With respect to performance or conducting activities done 
under the category of research, the professional prestige of any 
performance or conducting event is determined by the visibility of 
the performance forum and the likelihood that a printed review 
could result. Also affecting visibility of the event is the level of 
sophistication of the audience, and the reputation of the forum in 
the eyes of the music professionals in the same performance 
discipline.

 	A review can be a significant part of a performer's 
professional record; however, the lack of a printed review for any 
one concert should not be construed as a negative assessment of 
the work of the artist. The artist has no control whether a 
reviewer is present or whether a review is ultimately printed.

	Each live performance is itself a separate creative act 
where the professional risk is not reduced by the fact that the 
same program may have been done previously in another location.

 	Performers are evaluated and chosen for professional 
management sponsorship after a screening process that parallels 
the review process used for printed forums.  Vitae and recordings 
of prior concerts are carefully evaluated by sponsors before 
contractual terms are agreed upon.

 	The value of university and public school service in music is 
fully recognized.  In many aspects of music performance, service 
represents a major part of the professional time commitment, 
even for faculty with heavy teaching loads.  Music faculty 
participation in such events brings favorable notice to the 
institution as a whole.

 	Finally, public performance or exhibition activity was 
described as the appropriate research product for the discipline. 
Chancellor Patrick O'Rourke wrote, in a memorandum to the 
Executive Council in 1985:

	"Each faculty member must be involved in some  effort to 
	make a valid contribution to the body of knowledge in 
	his/her own discipline.  This contribution can be made in 
	a variety of ways:  research and publication in learned 
	journals, monograph publications, papers at professional 
	meetings, sculpting, painting, music composition, and other 
	performance media which may be appropriate to the 
	discipline.  The medium is not near as important as the 
	effort to make a contribution."


SUGGESTIONS FOR DEPARTMENTAL USE OF THE UNIT CRITERIA

 	It is recommended the faculty member including music 
performance or conducting activities as part of their promotion 
and tenure files classify their creative activities according to the 
categories defined below.  The candidate should describe 
explicitly which events were refereed, juried, or otherwise 
screened, and precisely how this process was accomplished.

	The Departmental Peer Review Committee and Department 
Chair should offer its collective opinion as to whether the events 
listed by the candidate appear in the appropriate categories. 

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

	The Unit Criteria document defines how the following 
professional activities apply to the discipline of music:

	I. 	TEACHING

	II. 	RESEARCH/SCHOLARLY ACTIVITY

	III. 	UNIVERSITY/PUBLIC SERVICE

for the three levels of professional forum:

	a. 	local and surrounding community

	b. 	statewide; mostly outside the local community

	c. 	national or international; mostly outside the state.


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


	MUSIC PERFORMANCE activities defined as part of TEACHING
 
	DEFINITIONS:  Performance done as an adjunct to formal 
	course instruction, principally to provide role models for 
	students in the classroom environment.

LOCAL:  Local solo and ensemble events done as part of studio 
teaching, master classes, student recitals, or non-solo 
participation with credit-producing university music ensembles.

	Method for Evaluation:  This activity should be evaluated 
	by use of the Learning Assessment System (LAS).
 
STATEWIDE:  Similar activities done as part of formal course 
instruction delivered at other units of the University.

	Method for Evaluation:  Opinion of professional peers on site, 
	if such opinions are available.  Also measured by whatever 
	evaluation tool might be in place at that event. 

NATIONAL:  Similar activities done as part of formal teaching done 
at institutions beyond the state or done at institutions outside the 
U.S.

	Method for Evaluation:   Opinion of professional peers on site, 
	if such opinions are available.  Also measured by whatever 
	evaluation tool might be in place at that event.  


Statewide and national teaching activities should not be confused 
with workshop-type performance activities described in Public and 
University Service. 

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

				MUSIC PERFORMANCE 
	activities defined as part of RESEARCH/SCHOLARLY 
	ACTIVITY

	DEFINITION:  Formal concerts given clearly independently 
	of formal instruction or service activities.  Shall include 
	performance of music created through electronic music 
	synthesis.

LOCAL:  Faculty solo recitals, chamber music, and solo concerto 
events where the visibility of the event is limited to the local 
community.

	Method for Evaluation:  Based upon opinions expressed by 
	music faculty, or by members of the Performing/Fine Arts/
	JB Promotion & Tenure Review Committee. 

STATEWIDE:  Similar events where the visibility of the events 
extends beyond the community but appears limited to the confines 
of the state 

	Method for Evaluation:  Faculty who do much performing 
	should be expected to have received some printed press 
	reviews for some of the concerts.  Unsolicited written 
	comments may also be used to substantiate the impact and 
	success of the performance.

NATIONAL:  Similar events given mostly at nationally or 
internationally recognized forums.  A forum located in the state 
such as the Fairbanks Summer Arts Festival, the Anchorage 
Festival, or the Sitka Festival may be included in this category if 
the professional visibility of the individual is judged to go beyond 
the State.  Also includes faculty participation at an 
internationally-known music ensemble or at a nationally-visible 
professional forum.  Includes sound recordings commercially and 
distributed beyond the State.

	Method for Evaluation:  Faculty engaged in such activities 
	Are expected to have accumulated reviews for some of the 
	events, if they appeared as a soloist.  For evaluation of 
	nationally-released sound recordings, the existence of 
	printed reviews would reflect significance of the product 
	in the professional world.


In the absence of published reviews, the Department Chair or the 
Department Peer Review Committee could (at their discretion) 
solicit opinions from knowledgeable persons who attended out-of-
town performances.  Faculty members desiring to engage local 
peers should discuss specifics with the Department Head well in 
advance of the concert event.

The principal determinant for measuring the impact placement of 
an event is the scope of professional visibility achieved. 

Special recognition will be given to those performances which

	1)  expose the performer to critical public evaluation by 
	professional peers, or

	2)  major statewide events in which the performer was 
	selected from a national or international pool of performers, 
	or

	3)  where the performer placed well in a formal competition, 
	or in a similar juried evaluation process.

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

				MUSIC PERFORMING 
	activities defined as part of PUBLIC AND UNIVERSITY 
	SERVICE

	DEFINITION:  defined as that done in a non-solo capacity 
	to support departmental ensembles, or done as part of 
	University public relations events.  Performance done to 
	benefit an extra-university host or sponsor, especially 
	where the host or sponsor is principally involved with 
	activities other than sponsorship of the performance arts.

LOCAL:  Performances given at a municipal event, given to benefit 
of a host or sponsor such as service organization, church, public 
school or private business.  Also includes performances with 
municipal non-profit performance groups (e.g. municipal band, 
light opera theatre, youth orchestra) or other activities done as 
part of public relations events held locally. 

	Method for Evaluation:  Since such activities are done to 
	benefit the sponsor or host directly,  no printed review 
	should be expected. Evaluation can be based upon the opinion 
	of faculty peers who attended the event. There is no 
	formalized tool to measure quality for such events.  The 
	invitation to participate should be judged as significant in 
	and of itself. 

STATEWIDE:   Similar performances given out of town.  Also 
includes performances with departmental-sponsored music 
ensembles on tour in the state; performing at music clinics at 
state regional music festivals by invitation, or performing done at 
public schools, for purposes of recruitment.  Local events may be 
included in this category if the event drew an audience which is 
statewide.

	Method for Evaluation:  Opinion of professional peers on site, 
	if such opinions are available. The importance of the event 
	could be assessed according to the professional prestige of the 
	sponsor or the host. There is no formalized tool to measure 
	quality for such events.  The invitation to participate should be 
	judged as significant in and of itself.  

NATIONAL or INTERNATIONAL:  Similar events done outside of the 
state.  A local or statewide event may be included in this category if 
the event drew an audience which was national or international in 
scope.

	Method for Evaluation: There is no formalized tool to measure 
	quality for such events.  The invitation to participate should be 
	judged as significant in and of itself.  The importance of the 
	event could be assessed according to the professional prestige 
	of the sponsor or the host. 


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


				MUSIC CONDUCTING
			activities defined as part of TEACHING

	DEFINITION:  Conducting done by the instructor as part of 
	required day-to-day preparation of credit-bearing music 
	ensemble courses.

LOCAL:  Conducting activities as defined above, including 
department-sponsored performance.

	Method for Evaluation:  Through use of the Learning 
	Assessment System (LAS). 

STATEWIDE:  Similar activities done as part of formal credit-
bearing course instruction delivered University wide.

	Method for Evaluation:  Opinion of professional peers on site, 
	if such opinions are available.  Also measured by whatever 
	evaluation tool might be in place at that event.
 
NATIONAL or INTERNATIONAL:  Similar activities done as part of 
formal credit-bearing course instruction done at institutions beyond 
the state or done internationally.

	Method for Evaluation:  Opinion of professional peers on site, 
	if such opinions are available.  Also measured by whatever 
	evaluation tool might be in place at that event.

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

				MUSIC CONDUCTING 
	activities defined as part of RESEARCH/SCHOLARLY 
	ACTIVITY

	DEFINITION:  Formal concerts given independently of formal 
	instruction and independent of service activities, except 
	where noted below.

LOCAL:   Conducting of non-credit producing department-sponsored 
music ensembles given locally.  Conducting of faculty chamber 
recitals given locally would be considered part of this category.

	Method for Evaluation:  Based primarily upon opinions by 
	music unit faculty who attended the performance.  Printed 
	reviews would not normally be expected. The provision to 
	allow occasional credit-producing events into the category 
	is NOT to be misunderstood to mean that any successful 
	course-related performance may be automatically included 
	in this category.  The assertion by the candidate that the 
	"exceptionally favorable" test was met would need to be 
	supported by Departmental Peer Review and Chair 
	evaluations.

STATEWIDE:   Similar events where the visibility extends beyond 
the community (e.g., if televised to the general public, or if noted 
in out-of-town press).

	Method for Evaluation:  Faculty do much conducting would be 
	expected to have received some printed reviews for some of 
	the concerts.  Letters of appreciation, or other unsolicited 
	written comments recognizing the merit of the performances, 
	could also be used to substantiate the impact and success of 
	the performance. 

NATIONAL:  Similar events given mostly at nationally or 
internationally recognized forums.  May include local performance 
if visibility is judged to extend to beyond the state.  Also includes 
faculty conducting appearances with a national, or internationally, 
known music ensemble or at nationally, or internationally, visible 
concert forums.  Sound recordings commercially marketed and 
distributed beyond the State would also be included in this 
category.

	Method for Evaluation:  The significance of such participation 
	would derive from the visibility or prestige of the ensemble.  
	For evaluation of nationally-released sound recordings, the 
	existence of printed reviews, would reflect the significance 
	of the product in the professional world. 


In the absence of published reviews, the Department Chair or the 
Departmental Peer Review Committee could (at their discretion), 
solicit opinions from knowledgeable persons who attended out-of-
town performances.  Such evaluations, if available, can 
supplement the candidate's professional file. Faculty members 
desiring to implement this evaluation tool should suggest the 
possibility of the music executive well in advance of the concert 
advance.  The lack of external peer evaluations should not reflect 
negatively on the record of the faculty candidate

The principal determinant for categorizing conducting events 
described above is the scope of the professional visibility 
achieved by the performance, and to a lesser degree, where the 
performance actually took place. 

Special recognition should be given to those performances which

	1)  exposed the conductor to critical public evaluation by 
	professional peers,

	2)  major statewide events in which the conductor was elected 
	from a national or international pool of conductors, or

	3)  where the conductor placed well in a formal competition 
	or in a similar juried evaluation process.

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

				MUSIC CONDUCTING 
	activities defined as part of UNIVERSITY AND PUBLIC 
	SERVICE

	DEFINITION:  to benefit an extra-university host or sponsor, 
	especially where the host or sponsor is principally involved 
	with activities other than sponsorship of the performing 
	arts.

LOCAL:  Performances given at a municipal event sponsored by a 
service organization, church, public school, or private business.  
Also includes conducting municipal band, light opera theater, 
youth orchestra, conducting of departmental ensembles for public 
school music ensembles (including those out-of-town groups 
which were hosted locally).

	Method for Evaluation:  There is no formalized tool to 
	measure quality for such events.  The invitation to 
	participate should be judged as significant in and of itself.

STATEWIDE FORUM:  Similar performances given out-of-town.  
Also includes conducting of department-sponsored music 
ensemble on tour of the state. Also includes conducting of music 
clinics at state region festivals by invitation and other clinics 
done around the state.

	Method for Evaluation:  There is no formalized tool to 
	measure quality for such events.  The invitation to 
	participate should be judged as significant in and of itself. 

NATIONAL or INTERNATIONAL:  Similar events done where 
professional visibility of the conductor extends beyond the 
confines of the state or local region.  May include being a clinician 
at a nationally-recognized event held locally, if sponsors of the 
event have a previously established record of selecting clinicians 
from a national pool.

	Method for Evaluation:  The importance of the event could 
	be assessed according to the professional prestige of the 
	sponsor or the host.  There is no formalized tool to measure 
	quality for such events.  The invitation to participate should 
	be judged as significant in and of itself.   

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

		PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE EXPECTATION DOCUMENT
		   SUMMARY OF UNIT CRITERIA DESIGNATIONS AND 
				PROFESSIONAL EXPECTATIONS
   
I.  Teaching    			A.  Local and surrounding 
					community

II. Research    			B.  Statewide; mostly outside the 
					local community

III. University and Public Service 	C.  National or International, 
					mostly outside of the state.




			PROFESSIONAL VISIBILITY EXPECTED FOR 
			PROMOTION TO DIFFERENT ACADEMIC RANKS 

Lecturer (non-tenure)    		IA

Instructor (non-tenure)   		IA

Instructor (tenure)    			IA, IIA, IIB, IIIA

Assistant Professor (tenure)   	IA, IIA, IIB, IIIA

Associate Professor (tenure)   	IA, IIA, IIB, IIC, IIIA, IIIB

Professor (tenure)    			IA, IIA, IIB, IIC, IIIA, IIIB


Criteria for tenure are assumed to be the same as those used for 
promotion to the rank of Associate Professor.

Candidates for promotion are expected to have a record of recent 
professional activities beyond the professional record used to 
achieve promotion to previous rank. 


*****************
The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting # 83 on 
November 16, 1998:


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

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to recommend that the proposed 
Regents' Policy 09.03.00--Student Dispute Resolution as submitted 
by the Board of Regents to the Faculty Alliance be accepted.

	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately

	RATIONALE:  	The Curricular Affairs Committee discussed 
		the revised draft policies on Student Dispute Resolution,
		forwarded to the Faculty Senate for review and moves 
		to forward them to the full Senate, with its 
		recommendation that they be accepted.


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

Date:  	12 October, 1998

To:  		Pat Ivey, Executive Officer, for distribution to
		Systemwide Governance Organizations

From:  	'Nanne Myers, Assistant Vice President for Academic 
		Affairs, for the Policy Revision Work Group

Subj:  	Re-draft of Regents' Policy/University Regulation
		09.03.01--Student Dispute Resolution

Last spring, as a result of the dissatisfaction expressed in this 
policy and regulation by the Faculty Alliance and the Coalition of 
Student Leaders, the drafting team met with representatives of the 
Faculty Alliance.  It was agreed that the team would revise the 
policy and regulation to reflect the AAUP guidelines for review of 
assignment of final grades.  The resulting drafts are herewith 
forwarded for your consideration, with apologies that they were not 
available at the beginning of the semester.  Editing reflects changes 
from the first draft forwarded for review by governance.

The changes to the policy are summarized below.

	09.03.02.A  The word "generally" is inserted to indicate that 
		an informal resolution is not a necessary first step in 
		the initiation of a review.

	09.03.02.B.2  This section has been substantively changed 
		to make a policy statement that only faculty may 
		authorize a change in grade.

	09.03.02.B.3  This paragraph is rewritten but not substantively 
		changed


The regulation has been revised to address reviews of final grade 
assignments as distinct from all other reviews of academic 
decisions, and reflect student concerns regarding eligibility for 
services while a review is in progress.  

	The review of final grade assignment results in a process by 
which a faculty committee may change a grade given by an 
instructor.  It is important to note, as the AAUP guidelines point 
out, that institutions receiving federal funds are legally obligated 
to provide procedures by which students might successfully 
challenge grades that they believe may have been tainted by race 
or sex discrimination.  A copy of the AAUP statement is attached.

	On the advice of the Systemwide Academic Council, 
procedures for resolving other academic disputes are left to 
definition by MAU rules and procedures.  The chancellor or 
designee is specified as the person to make the final decision, 
since in some cases, e.g., for decisions regarding graduate studies 
at UAS, the chief academic officer may make the decision which is 
subsequently challenged.

	Section 09.03.02.E has been revised in response to a 
recommendation from the Coalition of Students Governments that 
eligibility for services not be affected while a dispute is in 
progress.  Unfortunately, this is not always possible or desirable.

The drafting team requests the Faculty Alliance and the Coalition of 
Student Leaders to consider completing final recommendations on 
the policy in time for its presentation to the board in November.  
Because the regulation is approved not by the board, but by the 
president, more time could, and probably should, be taken for 
consideration of final recommendations regarding the regulation.

This request is made out of respect for Academic and Student 
Affairs Chair Sharon Gagnon, who was primarily instrumental in 
calling for and expediting the sorely needed revisions to policy 
regarding academic matters and student affairs.  Regent Gagnon's 
term is coming to an end, and the November meeting is most likely 
to be her last.  It would be fitting to accomplish as much revision as 
possible before she leaves.

(The following policy draft is the equivalent of the hard copy with 
the footer "For Governance Review, second reading; Disp Res Pol 
10.13gov.doc)


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

DRAFT        					POLICY 09.03.00


				PART IX

			    STUDENT AFFAIRS

				CHAPTER III

			Student Dispute Resolution


General Statement: Student Dispute Resolution 	P09.03.01

The University of Alaska will provide fair, consistent, and 
expeditious procedures for students to contest actions or 
decisions which adversely affect them.  These procedures will be 
published in student catalogs or handbooks.  Students may direct a 
complaint to the MAU senior student services officer, the chief 
academic officer, the chief administrative services officer, or 
designee.  This official will initiate action to resolve the 
complaint or will inform the student of the appropriate procedure, 
if any, for review of the action or decision in dispute.

Actions or decisions of the Board of Regents or the substance of 
Regents Policy, University Regulation, and MAU rules and procedures 
are not subject to review pursuant to the provisions of this policy.


General Procedures For Dispute Resolution      	P09.03.02

A.  	Informal Resolution Procedures

	Unless specified to the contrary, the first step for a student 
	to challenge a university action or decision will 
	[[GENERALLY]] be to seek an informal resolution with the 
	person responsible for the decision or action, or with the 
	person's immediate supervisor.

B.  	Formal Review Procedures

	If the matter [is not] CAN NOT BE resolved informally, a 
	student may submit a written statement to initiate one of 
	the following formal review procedures.  A request for 
	formal dispute resolution may not be filed under more than 
	one procedure, or more than once on an issue.  Each procedure 
	will include at least one level of review prior to the final 
	decision, and will provide due process appropriate to the 
	issue. 

	1.  	Review of student employment decisions or actions 

		Issues related to student employment will be reviewed 
		in accordance with the grievance procedure specified 
		in Regents' Policy on human resources, except as 
		specifically modified by Regents' Policy on 
		employment of students.

	2.  	Review of academic decisions or actions

		Challenges to academic decisions or actions of the 
		faculty or academic administration will be reviewed 
		in accordance with the procedures set forth in the 
		accompanying regulation and in MAU rules and 
		procedures. [ Review of the assignment of grades will 
		start with the faculty member assigning the grade, 
		unless this person is unavailable within the review 
		schedule provided in the regulation.]  Appropriate 
		issues for this procedure include such things as 
		alleged arbitrary or capricious dismissal from or 
		denial of admission to an academic program based 
		upon academic considerations, or assignment of final 
		grades.  ONLY THE COURSE INSTRUCTOR OR A REVIEW 
		BODY COMPOSED OF FACULTY MAY AUTHORIZE A CHANGE 
		IN THE ASSIGNMENT OF A FINAL GRADE. 

	3. 	Review of university judicial decisions or disciplinary 
		SANCTIONS [actions] 

NOTE: THE FOLLOWING TWO PARAGRAPHS ARE NEW WORDING  

		Procedures by which students may challenge decisions 
		resulting from university judicial procedures and/or 
		the imposition of sanctions for violation of the 
		Student Code of Conduct are set forth in University 
		Regulation 09.02.04 - Student Rights and 
		Responsibilities, sections G - K. 

		The Code, examples of violations of the Code (which 
		include cheating, plagiarism, and disruption of the 
		living or learning environment), university judicial 
		procedures, and disciplinary sanctions are set forth 
		in Regents' Policy and University Regulation 09.02.00 - 
		Student Rights and Responsibilities, and MAU rules and 
		procedures.

NOTE: THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH WAS PROPOSED FOR DELETION 

		[Challenges of university judicial decisions or 
		disciplinary sanctions related to behavioral or 
		academic misconduct will be reviewed in accordance 
		with procedures set forth in University Regulation on 
		student rights and responsibilities and in MAU rules 
		and procedures.  Appropriate issues for this procedure 
		include such things as allegations of cheating, 
		plagiarism, disruption of the living or learning 
		environment, or other violations of the Student Code of 
		Conduct.

	4. 	Review of administrative decisions or actions

		Chancellors will be responsible for providing and 
		promulgating MAU rules and procedures which provide 
		a mechanism for students to challenge certain 
		administrative decisions or actions not otherwise 
		covered in this policy.  Not all administrative 
		decisions and actions will be subject to challenge.

C.  	Final decision

At the end of the review proceedings the university will issue a 
written decision, identified as the "final decision," after which 
point the matter under dispute will not be reviewed further by the 
university.  Notification of the final decision will be made in 
accordance with Regents' Policy on student rights and 
responsibilities regarding seeking further redress in the court 
system to university decisions and actions.  (See also Regents' 
Policy 09.02.08 - Student Rights and Responsibilities: Final 
University Decision.) 


Confidentiality    				P09.03.03

Access to files pertaining to student disputes will be governed by 
state and federal laws and regulations, Regents' Policy, University 
Regulation, and MAU rules and procedures and may vary with the 
issue under review and the review process.

The university cannot guarantee confidentiality but will make a 
reasonable effort to  preserve the legitimate privacy interests of 
the  persons involved.  In order to preserve the legitimate privacy 
interests of the persons involved, all participants in the 
proceedings will be expected to maintain confidentiality.

The person in charge of the review procedure may release 
information if appropriate permission from the parties is provided 
or if other applicable legal requirements are met.


Access to Formal Review Proceedings     	P09.03.04

Student dispute resolution proceedings will normally be closed. 
Requests for an open proceeding must be made by a party prior to the 
start of the proceeding.  Such requests will be granted to the extent 
allowed by law unless the person in charge of the proceeding 
determines that all or part of a proceeding should be closed based 
upon considerations of fairness, justice, and other relevant factors.  
A party may choose an advisor to be present at all times during the 
proceedings.

The person in charge of the proceeding may direct that witnesses, 
but not the parties or their advisors, be excluded from the 
proceedings except during their testimony.  The deliberations of the 
hearing panel or officer will be closed to the public and the parties.