The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting # 96 on 
September 25, 2000:


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

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to withdraw the motion to amend the 
Constitution presented at the May 5, 2000 meeting concerning research 
faculty membership on the Senate.  


	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately

	RATIONALE:  	The Faculty Affairs Committee discussion raised 
		several issues with this motion as presented and they will 
		study the issue further before bringing it back to the 
		Senate.  


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

***FIRST READING***

MOTION
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend Article III, Section 2 of the 
UAF Faculty Senate Constitution as follows:


[[  ]]  =  Deletions
CAPS =  Additions


	ARTICLE III - Membership

Sect. 2	Voting members of the Senate must EITHER hold academic 
		rank [[and must be]] WITH full-time CONTINUING 
		APPOINTMENT AT [[permanent employees of]] the 
		University of Alaska FAIRBANKS OR HOLD SPECIAL 
		ACADEMIC RANK WITH TITLE PRECEDED BY ŒRESEARCHı 
		AND HAVE A THREE-YEAR CONTINUING APPOINTMENT IN 
		THE YEAR OF ELIGIBILITY AND ELECTION.

	EFFECTIVE:  	Upon Chancellor approval

	RATIONALE:  	The number of research faculty on campus has 
		increased in recent years.  Members of this faculty group 
		seek participation in faculty governance as well as 
		representation on the Faculty Senate.  This change 
		accommodates this group of faculty.


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

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting # 96 on 
September 25, 2000:


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

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve the following Appeals Policy 
for Academic Decisions.


	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately
				Upon Chancellor Approval

	RATIONALE:  	This motion will bring UAF into compliance with 
				the new UA Regulation 09.03.02 and extend 
				UAF's appeals policy beyond grade appeals.  



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


		  APPEALS POLICY FOR ACADEMIC DECISIONS
			Other Than Assignment of Grades


I.	Introduction

The University of Alaska is committed to the ideal of academic freedom 
and so recognizes that academic decisions (i.e., non-admission to or 
dismissal from any UAF program) are a faculty responsibility.  Therefore, 
the University administration shall not influence or affect the review of 
academic decisions.

The following procedures are designed to provide a means for students 
to seek review of academic decisions alleged to be arbitrary and 
capricious.  Before taking formal action, a student must attempt to 
resolve the issue informally.  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.	As used in the schedule for review of academic decisions, a class 
	day is any day of scheduled instruction, excluding Saturday and 
	Sunday, included on the academic calendar in effect at the time of 
	a review.  Final examination periods are counted as class days.

B.	"Department Chair" 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).

C.   	The "dean/director" is the administrative head of the college or 
	school offering the course or program from which the academic 
	decision or action arises.  For students at extended campuses 
	the director of the campus may substitute for the dean/director 
	of the unit offering the course or program.

D. 	The next regular semester is the fall or spring semester following 
	that in which the disputed academic decision was made. For 
	example, it would be the fall semester for a final grade issued 
	for a course completed during the previous spring semester or 
	summer session.  The spring semester is the next regular 
	semester for an academic decision made during the previous 
	fall semester.


III.	Procedures

A.	A student wishing to appeal an academic decision other than a 
	grade assignment must first request an informal review of the 
	decision.  

	1.	Notification must be received by the Provost within 
		15 days from the first day of instruction of the semester 
		in which the decision takes effect.

	2.	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 Provost, after review of supporting documentation 
		provided by the student, may adjust the deadlines 
		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. 

	3.	The Provost will request the appropriate department chair 
		or dean to conduct an informal review of the decision and 
		a determination of whether the original decision should be 
		overturned or changed in any way.  This review shall take 
		no more than ten (10) days.  

	4.	The Provost will consult with the student on the 
		department chair/dean's recommendation.  If the student 
		does not find that recommendation acceptable, he/she 
		may request the Provost to conduct a formal review.

B.	The formal review will be conducted as follows.  

	1.	This review is initiated by the student through a signed, 
		written request to the Provost.  

		a.	The student's request for review may be submitted 
			using university forms specifically designed for this 
			purpose and available from the Office of the Provost.

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

		c.	The request for a formal review must be received 
			no later than 10 days after the student has learned 
			the outcome of the informal review (IIIA4).

		d.	The request must detail the basis for the allegation 
			that the decision was made on a basis other than 
			sound professional judgment based upon standard 
			academic policies, procedures and practices.

	2.	The Provost will appoint a 5 member review committee 
		composed of the following:

		a.	One tenure-track faculty member from the academic 
			unit in which the decision was made.   

		b.	Two tenure-track faculty members from within the 
			college or school but outside of the unit in which 
			the decision was made.  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 decision was made.  
			If available, this member is to be selected from the 
			members of the UAF Faculty Appeals and Oversight 
			Committee. 

		d.	The fifth member to be appointed by the Provost 
			will be a non-voting student representative.

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

		f.	The department chair of the program in which the 
			decision was made will act as the program's monitor 
			of all proceedings.   

	3.	The committee must schedule a mutually agreeable date, 
		time and location for the appeal hearing within 10 working 
		days of receipt of the student's formal request.

		a.	During this and 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 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.

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

		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.

	4.	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 program 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 a representative of the 
				program 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.

	5.	The final decision of the committee will be made in private 
		by a majority vote.

		a.	Actions which the committee can take if it accepts 
			the student's allegation may include, but are not 
			limited to, the following:

			1)	direct the program to reconsider the decision,

			2)	provide a final alternative decision.

		b.	The academic decision review committee proceedings 
			will result in the preparation of written findings and 
			conclusions. 

		c.	A formal, written report of the decision must be 
			forwarded to the student, program/department chair, 
			dean and Provost within five days of the meeting.  
			The Provost shall then be responsible for 
			communicating the decision to other relevant 
			offices (e.g., Admissions, Registrar).

		d.	The decision of the committee is final.

C.	The entire process must be completed by the end of the 
	semester in which the decision first took effect.  



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

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting # 96 on 
September 25, 2000:


MOTION 
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the UAF Faculty Appointment 
and Evaluation Policies and Regulations for the Evaluation of Faculty: 
Initial Appointment, Annual Review, Reappointment, Promotion, Tenure, 
and Sabbatical Leave as attached. 


	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately
				Upon Chancellor's Approval

	RATIONALE:  	Unit Criteria as a component of
		evaluation, tenure, and promotion was apparently 
		removed from the last "Blue Book" due to an erroneous 
		belief that the faculty union contracts rendered them 
		void or redundant in the "Blue Book".  This is emphatically 
		not the case, and so we have reinserted the relevant 
		paragraphs on Unit Criteria from the previous "Blue 
		Book".


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


[[  ]]  = 	Deletion
CAPS = 	Addition


III.	PERIODIC EVALUATION OF FACULTY


B. 	UNIT STANDARDS AND INDICES.  UNIT STANDARDS AND INDICES 
	ARE THE RECOGNIZED VALUES USED BY A FACULTY WITHIN A 
	SPECIFIC DISCIPLINE TO ELUCIDATE, BUT NOT REPLACE, THE 
	GENERAL FACULTY CRITERIA ESTABLISHED IN A., ABOVE, FOR 
	EVALUATION OF FACULTY PERFORMANCE ON AN ONGOING BASIS 
	AND FOR PROMOTION, TENURE AND SABBATICAL REVIEW.

	UNIT STANDARDS AND INDICES MAY BE, BUT ARE NOT REQUIRED 
	TO BE, DEVELOPED BY THOSE UNITS WISHING TO DO SO.  UNITS 
	THAT CHOOSE NOT TO DEVELOP DISCIPLINE-SPECIFIC UNIT 
	STANDARDS AND INDICES MUST FILE A STATEMENT SO STATING 
	WITH THE CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE WHICH SHALL SERVE AS THE 
	OFFICIAL REPOSITORY FOR APPROVED UNIT STANDARDS AND 
	INDICES.

	UNIT STANDARDS AND INDICES, IF DESIRED, WILL BE DEVELOPED 
	BY THE FACULTY IN A DISCIPLINE.  AFTER APPROVAL BY A 
	MAJORITY OF THE DISCIPLINE FACULTY, THE UNIT STANDARDS 
	AND INDICES WILL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE 
	COGNIZANT DEAN WHO WILL FORWARD THE UNIT STANDARDS 
	AND INDICES TO THE PROVOST.  THE PROVOST WILL REVIEW 
	FOR CONSISTENCY WITH POLICY AND WILL FORWARD THESE 
	STANDARDS AND INDICES TO THE SENATE FOR ITS AND THE 
	CHANCELLOR'S APPROVAL.

	UNIT STANDARDS AND INDICES WILL BE REVIEWED PERIODICALLY 
	BY THE FACULTY OF THE UNIT.  REVISION OF UNIT STANDARDS 
	AND INDICES MUST FOLLOW THE ESTABLISHED REVIEW PROCESS.  
	IF THE UNIT STANDARDS AND INDICES ARE NOT REVISED, A 
	STATEMENT OF REAFFIRMATION OF THE CURRENT UNIT 
	STANDARDS AND INDICES MUST BE FILED WITH THE 
	CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE, FOLLOWING THE REVIEW.

	UNIT STANDARDS AND INDICES, WHEN DEVELOPED BY THE 
	FACULTY AND APPROVED BY THE SENATE AND THE 
	CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE, MUST BE USED IN THE REVIEW 
	PROCESSES BY ALL LEVELS OF REVIEW.  THEIR USE IS NOT 
	OPTIONAL.

	IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CANDIDATE FOR 
	TENURE OR PROMOTION TO INCLUDE THESE APPROVED 
	STANDARDS AND INDICES IN THE APPLICATION FILE. 


IV.	EVALUATION PROCESS FOR RETENTION, PROMOTION, TENURE,
	AND POST TENURE REVIEW

A.	Linkage of Promotion/Tenure. An award of tenure is concurrent 
	with promotion and vice versa. Any faculty member applying for 
	promotion to the associate level must also apply for tenure; and 
	a faculty member at the rank of assistant professor may not 
	apply for tenure without concurrently seeking advancement to 
	the rank of associate professor.

B.	Faculty with Academic Rank

	1.	Criteria and Eligibility.  A record of continuing effective 
		performance shall be expected.  Procedures, performance 
		criteria and requirements are set forth in the applicable 
		union contracts, UAF Faculty Policies, and in policies of 
		the Board of Regents and the regulations of the University 
		system currently in effect and as they may change.

	2.	Review Process.  Promotion and tenure of a faculty 
		member results from a multi-level process of evaluation 
		beginning in the academic unit of the candidate.

		a.	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 BY THE UAF FACULTY SENATE 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 BY THE UAF FACULTY SENATE 
				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 
				BY THE CRA EXECUTIVE DEAN 
				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.