FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT: Sheri Layral 312 Signers' Hall 474-7964 FYSENAT For Audioconferencing: Bridge #: 1-800-910-9620 Anchorage: 561-9620 A G E N D A UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #59 Monday, November 13, 1995 1:30 p.m. - 3:35 p.m. Wood Center Ballroom 1:30 I Call to Order - Eric Heyne 5 Min. A. Roll Call B. Approval of Minutes to Meeting #58 C. Adoption of Agenda 1:35 II Status of Chancellor's Office Actions 5 Min. A. Motions Approved: none B. Motions Pending: none 1:40 III Remarks by Chancellor J. Wadlow 10 Min. Questions 5 Min. 1:55 IV Governance Reports A. ASUAF - J. Hayes 5 Min. B. Staff Council - M. Scholle 5 Min. C. President's Report - E. Heyne 10 Min. (Attachment 59/1) D. Faculty Alliance meeting - D. Lynch 10 Min. (Attachment 59/2) 2:25 V Public Comments/Questions 5 Min. 2:30 VI Consent Agenda 5 Min. A. Resolution to confirm the Faculty Appeals & Oversight Committee membership (Attachment 59/3) B. Resolution to confirm the Chemistry Department Peer Review Committee (Attachment 59/4) C. Resolution to confirm the Education Department Peer Review Committee (Handout) D. Motion to modify the deadline schedule for add/drop, withdrawal, credit/audit, and freshman low grade reports (Attachment 59/5) 2:35 VII New Business A. Motion to amend the policies on course 5 Min. compression and course approval (Attachment 59/6), submitted by Curricular Affairs B. Motion to amend statement on Interdisciplinary 5 Min. Studies (Attachment 59/7), submitted by Curricular Affairs C. Motion on Amorous Relationships (Attachment 5 Min. 59/8), submitted by Faculty Affairs D. Resolution to endorse Systemwide Governance 5 Min. Council Constitutional changes (Attachment 59/9), submitted by Eric Heyne 2:55 VIII Committee Reports 30 Min. A. Curricular Affairs - Dana Thomas B. Faculty Affairs - Barbara Alexander (Attachment 59/10) C. Scholarly Activities - Paul Layer D. Developmental Studies - Ron Illingworth E. Faculty Appeals & Oversight - Diane Bischak (Attachment 59/11) F. Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement - Joan Moessner (Attachment 59/12) G. Legislative & Fiscal Affairs - Michael Jennings H. University-wide Promotion/Tenure - John Keller 1994-95 Annual Report (Attachment 59/13) 3:25 IX Discussion Items A. Search Committee for CRA Dean 5 Min. (Attachment 59/14a-d) B. Report on the Faculty Work Load Model of Banner - D. Lynch (Attachment 59/15a-b) 3:30 X Members' Comments/Questions 5 Min. 3:35 XI Adjournment ************************ ATTACHMENT 59/1 UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #59 NOVEMBER 13, 1995 PRESIDENT'S REPORT - Eric Heyne On Oct. 17 the Systemwide Governance Council met to consider, among other things, fundamental changes to its constitution. Those changes are included as an attachment to a motion under New Business requesting that the Senate endorse the changes. Last year President Read was directed to pursue changing the SGC because it was not working well, and to divert some of its funds to the Faculty Alliance, which was working well. These changes are in that direction. Moreover, they reduce the number of scheduled meetings, change the membership to include Faculty Alliance Members, and make it clearer that the SGC is not a decision-making body nor the next "higher" governance organization to the Alliance. On Oct. 26 and 27 the Faculty Alliance met for two days in Anchorage, the second day with a number of administrators including President Komisar and Provost Keating. President-elect Lynch's report details much of that discussion, so I won't repeat it. I second his comment that the Alliance is functioning well, allowing us to communicate with our peers at the other MAU's, and giving us a more effective voice with Statewide and the Regents than we would have alone--though that's not saying much. We had the benefit at this meeting of a letter summarizing the Faculty Affairs Committee's recommendations regarding the latest draft of Regents policy on sexual harassment and dispute resolution. A new draft, the one that will actually go before the Board for approval, will be available for comment early next week. Contact the Senate Office or Patty Kastelic's office in Statewide for a copy. The third draft of another set of Regents academic policies, including such matters as transfer among MAU's and maximum number of credits for degrees, is currently available on the Systemwide Governance home page, and a hard copy is available in the Senate Office. You are encouraged to review individually all Regents policies and provide comments to Alliance members or directly to Statewide. We have at least two Senate committees looking at each section of policy as it comes down the pike, but there's no reason to limit ourselves to official committee reviews. Several very important faculty issues are coming up for Regents' review this year, including tenure (a report is due in June), workload (our President is convinced that we need to increase our student credit hour/faculty member ratio, and some regents want faculty members to be more "accountable"), and indirect compensation (Patty Kastelic will speak about this issue at our December meeting). In addition, we have to decide what to do about the compensation policy, in response to suggestions for implementation that Provost Keating will offer in the next few weeks. We have tentatively scheduled a meeting for May 13, to make up for the canceled October meeting. By that time we will have to have produced positions on tenure, workload, indirect compensation, and the compensation policy--plus whatever else is thrown at us in the meantime. ************************ ATTACHMENT 59/2 UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #59 NOVEMBER 13, 1995 FACULTY ALLIANCE MEETING, ANCHORAGE, OCTOBER 26, 27, 1995 Donald F. Lynch, Ph.D., Pres. Elect, UAF Faculty Senate My overall impression is that the nine members of the Faculty Alliance worked together very smoothly as a team indicating that the three Faculty Senates are in agreement on serious current issues. Cheryl Mann of Anchorage is an excellent Chairperson and good speaker, and Richard Hacker, Southeastern, is a master at the art of amiable persuasion as is Phil Slattery of Sitka. Eric Heyne, myself, and Mike Jennings represented the views of the UAF Faculty Affairs committee regarding the proposed Grievance Policy, well described by the commentary prepared by Mike Pippenger. Pat Ivey was extremely helpful to the Alliance. The Alliance members felt strongly that additional faculty consultation is vitally necessary as part of the deliberations which occur in the Statewide Academic Council which is composed of the Provost, UAF, Provost UAA, the Dean of Academic Affairs, Southeast. The Alliance also felt that the Regents at their last meeting had invited faculty consultation, d this matter was to be taken up by Cheryl Mann in contact with Regent Virginia Breeze. The idea here was some form of faculty participation in the deliberations of the Regents' Academic and Student Affairs Committee. Friday, October 27th, was a meeting between the President, Provost, UAF, and Patty Kastelic, Human Relations, and the Provost UAA. The lengthy discussion covered numerous topics, and the Faculty Alliance under Cheryl Mann's guidance sought to go through the issues raised by the three Senates concerning the proposed new Academic policies, Grievance and Termination for Cause policy, maximum limits on credits allowed in a degree program, and requests for further elucidation as to the intent various policies. While not wishing to quote anyone in particular, my conclusions regarding the direction of Regents' and Administration policies are as follows: - recognizing that the Governor's budget committee has determined that funding for the University of Alaska is not critical to the future of the state, the University should seek ways and means of increasing tuition income while maintaining or reducing direct instructional costs. Proposals suggest a possible ten percent reduction in state support for the University, or about 16 million dollars out of the current 167 million. Several means are seen as appropriate to achieving this objective: a. the development of the Electronic Classroom, using CD- Roms, teleconferences, and E-Mail for courses in specific specialties on a statewide basis. These might include courses in Finance, a statewide BBA program, and the successful Medical Records Management distance delivery courses presently in existence in Southeastern. The idea is that the University can afford one good specialist in many fields, but not one for each Campus. Such courses might also be offered nationally and perhaps even internationally. The Provost UAF has available funds for the development of such courses which have a broad potential student audience. b. improved coordination of academic programs among all three Campuses to insure that new programs are not duplicated, and that existing programs and degree requirements are coordinated and (perhaps standardized-Dfl comment). c. restrictions on the maximum number of credit hours required for a degree program to insure that students can in all but professional degrees graduate with 132 credits. There is a two fold fear here: first, legislatures in some states, e.g. Florida, are mandating such limitations, and the same may happen in Alaska; and, second, faculty in some states have increased program credit hour requirements beyond that which is reasonable. (Dfl comment: there appears to be no evidence that U of A faculty have done so; existing professional degrees, including Music, will be approved as they stand since they meet national requirements.) d. development of some means of insuring that courses in degree programs are in such a sequence that students can achieve their degrees in four or four and a half years. There have been consistent complaints that this is currently not the case in unspecified programs. e. pursuing as yet unspecified policies to reduce the amount of time students take to complete a degree program. A federal study using data from 1988 and 1989 showed that students who declared majors in those years in a select set of disciplines failed to graduate within four and a half years, and most took very much longer. This study suggests, but does not prove, that the University of Alaska is encouraging students to use federal student loans and grants for entirely too many years. (Dfl Comment: alliance members, including yours truly, vigorously attacked these data as inadequate and deceiving.) f. instituting a compensation program which will mandate that faculty must receive a better than satisfactory evaluation every year in order to receive any raise. There will be no more across the board raises. The system adopted in August and reaffirmed in September is designed to reward those who bring in federal grants and those who achieve increases in enrollments. Evidently, the idea here is that faculty are to be evaluated on an individual basis regarding both proposal successes and credit hours, with instructional achievements weighted by subject, course level, etc. The actual compensation proposal is a two part matter: one percent and one point six percent. The 1% is for retention, promotions, and market based salary adjustments in certain areas. The faculty receiving these raises are to be excluded from those evaluated for raises under the 1.6% funds. In addition, faculty with a high success rate in proposals may get their raises from federal rather than state funds, and about twenty percent of the 1% money may be available for other raises. In short, the total amount available is greater than just 1.6% of last years faculty salary budget. But rewards are to be based on proposals submitted and funded, and total enrollments. g. to the maximum degree possible, develop common core curricula (General Education Requirements) and major requirements among all three campuses so that students can easily transfer courses from one University of Alaska institution to another. In pursuing this objective, policies are being developed which potentially will standardize General Education Requirements. This seems to be a particular concern of Southeastern and is motivated by a desire to ease student transfers within the system. h. implementing Academic Policies, Regulations, and Procedures which will achieve the above objectives. General Conclusions 1. The meeting with the administration was on occasion somewhat adversarial in nature, but the general tone was informational, not personal. Statewide is approaching academic matters from the viewpoint of national trends, developing federal policies, and probable decreases in state funding for the University. The Faculty Alliance is approaching academic matters from the viewpoint of the three senates. These two are not in all cases in agreement, and, therefore, there are conflicting viewpoints. 2. There appears at this moment to be a general desire on the part of three Regents to have better communication with the Faculty. However, there is agreement that there should not be a Faculty Regent. 3. In working towards greater inter-Campus academic coordination, the role of the Statewide Academic Council will probably become more significant. It has replaced the position of Statewide Academic Vice President . 4. As a Faculty, as a Senate, and as the Administrative Committee, we simply must take these new proposed policies quite seriously. They are part of a whole and must be considered in that fashion, not in bits and pieces. For this reason, the work of the Faculty Affairs, Scholarly Affairs and Curricular Affairs Committees achieves very particular importance. We may expect the new policies, as hopefully modified in the review process, to be adopted at the February meeting of the Board of Regents. 5. the relegation of the University of Alaska to a priority lower than that of primary and secondary education, the prison system, police and fire protection, and other essential government activities, does not bode well for future state funding given a potential decrease in total general fund revenues of five hundred million dollars. This is a problem which should be seriously addressed by the Senate Legislative and Financial Affairs Committee. 6. Political Action on the part of faculty groups should, given the potential seriousness of the state funding decrease, be a significant matter for consideration. The Anchorage Campus already has an organization to perform this function, as does the unionized faculty. We in Fairbanks are not part of any similar organized effort, although individuals certainly do have an impact on the political process. Some Quotations from Regents Policy, third draft: Each MAU has the primary responsibility for ensuring that the educational needs of its assigned service area are met, utilizing not only its own educational resources but also those available throughout the University of Alaska. (P.10 .02 01) Duties of the Systemwide Academic Council include: F. coordinate academic programs throughout the University of Alaska and facilitate student progress toward degree completion or other educational goals; and G. review, revise, and administer faculty personnel policies and procedures. (P. 10.02.02) Statewide Instruction Programs To provide access without unnecessary duplication of programs, each MAU will have the responsibility of serving both local and statewide constituencies. Each MAU will contribute to the integrated instructional program of the University of Alaska through practices such as: A. sharing intellectual and material resources; B. collaboration among units in teaching, research, and public service; C. establishing common curricula or reciprocity agreements for meeting general education core requirements and core requirements for similar academic degrees and certificates; and D. coordinated planning to assure orderly and efficient changes in educational programs in response to shifts in the needs of the state and its people. The University of Alaska will use distance delivery methods to ensure maximum educational opportunities for all Alaskans, regardless of geographic residence. (P. 10.04.01) Note: the verb will should be understood as the older military shall, i.e. this is a direct order! The maximum numbers of credits which may be required... Bachelor's degree 132 credits Master's degree 45 credits Exceptions to minimum or maximum credit hours may be made on the recommendation of the Chancellor and approval of the President. (P.10.04.02) Note: this means according to informal statements that the current programs in engineering and music will be approved. It is in the interest of both the student and the University of Alaska that its universities accept in transfer as much credit as is appropriate to the student's new degree and graduation requirements....the maximum articulation possible among degree and certificate programs will be sought. (P.10.04.05) A. 2. A student who has completed the general education requirements at one University of Alaska university or community college and transfers to another University of Alaska university or community college will be considered to have completed the general education requirements at all University of Alaska universities and community colleges. (P. 10.04.05) 'The major administrative units of the University of Alaska will cooperate in the establishment and delivery of educational courses and programs to promote access, minimize duplication of effort, and ensure the effective use of the University of Alaska's resources. Inter-MAU use of faculty expertise, specialized equipment, and library collections will be promoted, and collaborate with other colleges and universities will be sought. (P.10.04.10) Comment on proposed Grievance policy Mike Pippenger correctly argued that the policy confuses a dispute with a grievance. I argued that the mediation section will not work. I argued forcibly against the Termination for Cause procedure. The new revised policy is to contain a definition of Cause and should be available in a week or so. I am concerned that this policy should also contain other relevant policies, for example, procedures for reprimands and the procedures by which a termination for cause is established. This set of policies seems directed as much towards Classified employees as faculty. Indeed, at one point, the statement was made that faculty in practice would not fall under the three day response rule, but that classified employees would. I suggest the Grievance Policy also be reviewed by other governance groups if this is not already being done. ************************ ATTACHMENT 59/3 UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #59 NOVEMBER 13, 1995 SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE RESOLUTION =========== BE IT RESOLVED, That the UAF Faculty Senate moves to confirm additional membership on the Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee membership indicated below: Dale Feist, Professor, CNS David Stone, Professor, CNS Joseph Niebauer, Professor, SFOS Brian Paust, Associate Professor, SFOS Mark Tumeo, Associate Professor, SOE Jonah Lee, Professor, SOE ************************ ATTACHMENT 59/4 UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #59 NOVEMBER 13, 1995 SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE RESOLUTION =========== BE IT RESOLVED, That the UAF Faculty Senate moves to confirm the Chemistry Department Peer Review Committee for the academic year 1995-96 indicated below: Don Button, Chemistry Larry Duffy, Chemistry Dan Jaffe, Chemistry Rainer Newberry, Geology Channon Price, Physics David Shaw, Chemistry Richard Stolzberg, Chemistry EFFECTIVE: Immediately RATIONALE: According to UAF Regulations, units with less than seven tenured faculty must have their Unit Peer Review committees augmented with additional appropriate faculty. Presently the Chemistry Department has six tenured faculty, one of whom is serving on the University-wide Promotion and Tenure Committee. Thus, Chemistry has only five faculty eligible for serving on the Unit Peer Review Committee this year. ************************ ATTACHMENT 59/5 UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #59 NOVEMBER 13, 1995 SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS MOTION ======= The UAF Faculty Senate moves to modify the deadline schedules for add/drop, withdrawal, credit/audit, and freshman low grade reports as indicated below: [[ ]] = deletion CAPS = addition 1. Change Last Day to Add from [[End of 1st week of instruction]] to: SECOND FRIDAY AFTER 1ST DAY OF INSTRUCTION. 2. Change Late Add from [[Until the 4th Friday after classes begin]] to: 4TH FRIDAY AFTER 1ST DAY OF INSTRUCTION. 3. Change Drop from [[Until the end of the 2nd week of Instruction]] to: 3RD FRIDAY AFTER 1ST DAY OF INSTRUCTION. 4. Change Freshman Low Grade Reports from [[4th week of classes]] to: THE WEDNESDAY OF THE FOURTH FULL WEEK AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF INSTRUCTION. 5. Change Withdrawal for Freshman and Non-degree Students from [[Until the 6th Friday after classes begin]] to: 6TH FRIDAY AFTER 1ST DAY OF INSTRUCTION. 6. Change Withdrawal (for all other students) from [[Until the 4th Friday after classes begin]] to: 4TH FRIDAY AFTER 1ST DAY OF INSTRUCTION. 7. Change Faculty Initiated Withdrawal from [[Prior to the 4th Friday of classes]] to: 4TH FRIDAY AFTER 1ST DAY OF INSTRUCTION. 8. Change Change from Credit to Audit from [[Subsequent to the 3rd Friday after Instruction begins]] to: FOLLOWING 3RD FRIDAY AFTER 1ST DAY OF INSTRUCTION. 9. Change Change from Credit to Audit After 3rd Friday of Class (freshmen and non-degree students) from [[Same deadlines as Withdrawal but instructor's signature required]] to: UNTIL THE 6TH FRIDAY AFTER 1ST DAY OF INSTRUCTION. 10. Change Change from Credit to Audit After 3rd Friday of Class (all others) from [[Same deadlines as Withdrawal but instructor's signature required]] to: 4TH FRIDAY AFTER 1ST DAY OF INSTRUCTION. Late withdrawal and late total withdrawal remain the same as printed (Until the Last Day of Instruction). Note: First day of instruction identified in catalog. EFFECTIVE: Fall 1996 RATIONALE: To simplify the placement of dates and make the calendar more comprehensible. ************************ ATTACHMENT 59/6 UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #59 NOVEMBER 13, 1995 SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS MOTION ======= The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the policies on course compression and course approval by adding the following: Any course compressed to less than six weeks must be approved by the college or school's curriculum council. Furthermore, any core course compressed to less than 6 weeks must be approved by the Core Review Committee. Any new course proposal must indicate those course compression formats in which the course will be taught. Only those formats approved will be allowed for scheduling. EFFECTIVE: Fall 1996 RATIONALE: There is no existing institutional policy establishing an approval process for offering specific courses in a compressed format. This lack of an approval process has caused some faculty to question the appropriateness of some compressed courses. The proposed policy change implements an approval process using the existing governance structure and places the burden of review at the college/school level. A more general review by the Core Curriculum Committee is required for proposals to compress core courses because of their common use across disciplines. Courses currently offered in a compressed format were not granted blanket approval so that individual colleges and schools could review their current compressed offerings. The proposed policy does not prohibit colleges/schools from granting such a blanket approval themselves. ************************ ATTACHMENT 59/7 UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #59 NOVEMBER 13, 1995 SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS MOTION ======= The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the statement on Interdisciplinary Studies as currently listed in the UAF Catalog with the following noted changes: [[ ]] = Deletions CAPS = Additions Interdisciplinary Studies is a program available to UAF students within the associate of applied science, bachelor of arts, bachelor of science, and bachelor of technology degree options. The interdisciplinary program option provides flexibility to students with well-defined goals who do not fit into one of the established majors offered by the university. A student may submit his/her proposal for an interdisciplinary program upon completion of 15 credits at UAF [[and preferably 30 credits (for the associatešs degree), or 60 credits (for the bacheloršs degree) prior to graduation.]], AND HE/SHE SHALL HAVE AT LEAST 30 CREDITS REMAINING IN HIS/HER PROPOSED DEGREE PROGRAM WHEN SEEKING APPROVAL FOR AN INTERDISCIPLINARY DEGREE. The proposed curriculum must differ significantly from established degree programs at UAF and will require evidence that the necessary facilities and faculty are available to ensure an approximation of a normal undergraduate degree. All general requirements for the [[A.A.S.,]] B.A., B.S., or B.T. degree must be met. In developing an interdisciplinary proposal, the student should specify the degree (A.A.S., B.A., B.S., or B.T.), include an explanation of how the proposed program differs substantially from established UAF programs, and a discussion that current UAF resources are adequate to meet the requirementS of the proposed program. (A MINIMUM OF TWO DISCIPLINES IS REQUIRED FOR THE INTER- DISCIPLINARY DEGREE). The student then obtains an advisory committee of at least three faculty members from the appropriate disciplines THERE SHALL BE AT LEAST ONE FORMAL MEETING WITH THE FULL COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE STUDENTšS PROPOSAL. The committee will appoint a chair, review the proposed program, select a degree title in concert with the student, and make its recommendation. Applicants then submit to the Provost their proposal for the program they wish to pursue, specifying the degree, proposed curriculum WORKSHEET, and rationale. THE DEGREE IS AWARDED THROUGH THE SCHOOL OR COLLEGE OF THE CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE PROVOST. Students interested in pursuing an interdisciplinary A.A.S., B.A., B.S., or B.T. degree, or who want to explore this as a degree option, can contact the Academic Advising Center to receive assistance in finding faculty advisors and developing their curriculum proposal. EFFECTIVE: Fall 1996 RATIONALE: Clarification of procedures and requirements for interdisciplinary degrees. ************************ ATTACHMENT 59/8 UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #59 NOVEMBER 13, 1995 SUBMITTED BY FACULTY AFFAIRS MOTION ======= The UAF Faculty Senate moves to adopt a policy statement on "Consensual Sexual (Amorous) Relations between Faculty and Students" as formulated by the AAUP Council. The UAF Faculty Senate so moves with the understanding that adoption of the AAUP statement does not preclude amendments consistent with the Faculty Affairs Committee's "Report on Rationale and Options." AAUP Policy Statement on Consensual Sexual Relations Between Faculty and Students Sexual relations between students and faculty members with whom they also have an academic or evaluative relationship are fraught with the potential for exploitation. The respect and trust accorded a professor by a student, as well as the power exercised by the professor in an academic or evaluative role, make voluntary consent by the student suspect. Even when both parties have initially consented, the development of a sexual relationship renders both the faculty member and the institution vulnerable to possible later allegations of sexual harassment in light of the significant power differential that exists between faculty members and students. In their relationships with students, members of the faculty are expected to be aware of their professional responsibilities and avoid apparent or actual conflict of interest, favoritism, or bias. When a sexual relationship exists, effective steps should be taken to ensure unbiased evaluation or supervision of the student. EFFECTIVE: Upon Chancellor Approval * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE REPORT RATIONALE AND OPTIONS FOR A UAF POLICY ON "CONSENSUAL SEXUAL (AMOROUS) FACULTY-STUDENT RELATIONS" Rationale Chancellor Joan K. Wadlow has solicited the UAF faculty's engagement in the task of developing and adopting during the current academic year a policy on consensual sexual (amorous) relations between faculty and students (hereafter, CSAR). The Chancellor cites the 1995 AAUP statement that "sexual relations between students and faculty members with whom they also have an academic or evaluative relationship are fraught with the potential for exploitation." "Such amorous relationships," Dr. Wadlow observes, "even with so-called voluntary consent by the student, greatly increase the chances of abuse of power or a perception of abuse. In either case, the university and individuals suffer." The Chancellor's statements serve to underscore the following implicit claims: (1) that faculty have a moral responsibility to the university community at large; i.e., that in addition to acknowledged rights as teachers and scholars in the academic institution as such, certain obligations accrue to faculty in their exercise of the duties of office (faculty), obligations in the performance of office in relation to a community wherein there may be occasions of misperception about when one acts "as private person" and when one acts "as faculty person"; (2) that there are undesirable/unwanted consequences of CSAR, that these consequences are perceived to be undesirable/unwanted by the university community taken as a moral community, in which community faculty are governed in conduct by a professional ethic, notwithstanding any abiding personal ethic; (3) that this professional ethic includes a comportment of respect for students, which comportment in practice eschews any exploitation, harassment, or discriminatory treatment of students (see AAUP Statement on Professional Ethics, 1987); (4) that the moral responsibility invested in the faculty office is such that the discharge of that responsibility is subject to measures of accountability; (5) that CSAR is an issue of moral probity in particular because such relations otherwise transpose the faculty person into a situation of legal accountability under existing university policy and state statutes governing sexual harassment; (6) that faculty, in their moral autonomy (i.e., voluntary, intentional action) share in a causal responsibility for the occurrence of undesirable/unwanted consequences of CSAR (in a situation of actual litigation for cause, prosecution would likely seek legal remedy under mens rea doctrine, i.e., there was on the part of the faculty person a combination of "voluntary conduct" and "foresight of consequences"). Options General Comments: The UAF Faculty Senate may decide to forego entirely any explicit policy statement on CSAR, notwithstanding the request of the Chancellor. Should the Senate choose to develop such a policy, then a policy statement on CSAR may be written either as (a) a component of existing UAF Sexual Harassment Policy, or (b) a policy distinct from the Sexual Harassment Policy. Options include: (A) permitting CSAR, with the expectation that the faculty person will have taken steps to eliminate any present and/or future academic-contextual conflict of interest and assure unbiased evaluation of the student with whom there exists a CSAR. This option seeks to avoid infringement upon a private relation understood to be protected as a matter of civil right, i.e., right to privacy and right to associate (a point of view upheld by federal court decision in 1983, in Naragon v. Wharton, and upheld in a judgment rendered by the U>S> Supreme Court in 1984, in Roberts v. United States Jaycees). This option also presumes that such CSAR are undertaken legally, i.e., the student has attained to the age of consent established by state statute and has indeed freely consented to such a relationship. (B) Alternatively, the UAF Senate may adopt a policy that speaks to CSAR only in those cases in which the faculty person as teacher "is in a position to evaluate the student, and, in other cases, when a substantial risk exists that the student would feel pressured to consent to the relationship." [P. DeChiara, "The Need for Universities to Have Rules on Consensual Sexual Relationships Between Faculty Members and Students." Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems, 21:2(1988), pp. 137-160.] Distinctions may or may not be made here between "undergraduate" student and "graduate" student, the prohibition extending (i) only to the former group, (ii) to both groups, or (iii) to a student regardless of level of enrollment but who is in an "evaluative" academic relation (teacher, supervisor) with the faculty person. At issue here is some assessment of a CSAR "degenerating" into a situation of sexual harassment. This strategy acts preemptively on the part of the potential victim of sexual harassment, i.e., the student, accounting for the various procedural and social barriers to effective and successful grievance. (C) Alternatively, the UAF Senate may adopt a policy which expressly prohibits all CSAR, stating appropriate rationale and identifying "remedial measures" (e.g., raging from official reprimand to dismissal). In this policy option, it is recognized that the right to privacy "is not absolute," that "A compelling state interest may permit certain infringements of that right," so that "The asymmetry of power between faculty members and students, and the fact that what appears to be an adult, consensual, and private relationship may actually be the product of implicit or explicit duress, may present such a 'compelling interest'." [E. Keller, "Consensual Relationships and Institutional Policy."] Such "compelling interest" accords with the provision in Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 which "gives harassment victims the right to bring a private lawsuit against a university" (Alexander v. Yale University), thus making a faculty person's engagement in CSAR ramify at cost to the larger university community. Option A: UAF may decide to appropriate the AAUP Council's CSAR policy statement (see Academe, Sept/Oct 1995, p. 62). ************************ ATTACHMENT 59/9 UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #59 NOVEMBER 13, 1995 RESOLUTION =========== BE IT RESOLVED, That the UAF Faculty Senate moves to endorse the proposed changes to the System Governance Council Constitution. RATIONALE: The changes reflect the relative importance and success of the Faculty Alliance, as well as the Coalition of Student Leaders and the Staff Alliance, and make the Systemwide Governance Council more of a coordinating group for those three organizations. *************************** PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE COUNCIL: 1. Change the membership from one faculty, one staff and one student from UAA, UAF and UAS, one student from a rural site and one staff from Statewide Administration, to "the Alliance of Faculty Senates, the Coalition of Student Leaders, and the Staff Alliance." 2. Replace the Council chair with the heads of the other system governance groups who would moderate meetings on a rotating basis. 3. Meetings could be called by the president or one of the heads of any one of the other system governance groups, or by the president of the Board of Regents. 4. Amend voting to add, "The Council shall take no legislative action on system issues other than endorsement of the actions of the other system governance groups or to coordinate actions between them unless specifically directed by the president of the Board of Regents, the president of the university, or the Council co- chairs." 5. Reduce the minimum number of meetings per year from six to four and specify meetings only by audio or video conference. 6. Reduce the Council budget from $6,200 to a maximum of $3,000 and divide the balance equally between the Alliance of Faculty Senates, the Staff Alliance, or the Coalition of Student Leaders. If these changes meet with the approval of the System Governance Council necessary constitutional changes will be drafted and submitted to the Council for first reading according to the constitution and bylaws. ************************ CAPS IN TEXT = ADDITIONS (( )) = DELETIONS The System Governance Council of the University of Alaska Constitution ARTICLE I. INTENT It is the intent of the Board of Regents:1) that the faculty, staff and students shall share in the governance of the university, 2) that shared governance is an integral part of the business of the university, and 3) that participators in shared governance are empowered by the Board of Regents to carry out their governance responsibilities to the best of their abilities without interference or fear of reprisal. ARTICLE II. NAME The Board of Regents hereby establishes a mechanism for system governance consisting of faculty, staff and student representatives which shall be called the System Governance Council, hereinafter "Council." ARTICLE III. AUTHORITY, ROLE A. Authority The Council receives its authority by policy 03.01.01 of the University of Alaska Board of Regents which derives its authority from the Constitution and statutes of the State of Alaska. The Council shall carry out its functions subject to the authority of the Board of Regents and the President of the University. B. Role The Council shall provide an opportunity for faculty, staff and students to interact with the university president, regents and others regularly to discuss matters including, but not limited to, the following: policies and procedures for, and participating in, the university budget process; the framing of long range plans; university development; enhancing the university's public image and educating the public. The Council shall communicate the results of those discussions to the university community. The Council may also coordinate matters of mutual concern to the Alliance of Faculty Senates, the Staff Alliance and the Coalition of Student Leaders. ARTICLE VI. MEMBERSHIP AND ORGANIZATION A. Voting membership The voting membership of the Council shall consist of ((one faculty, one staff, and one student representative each from the University of Alaska Anchorage, the University of Alaska Fairbanks, and the University of Alaska Southeast, one staff representative from Statewide Administration Assembly and one additional at-large student representative)) THE ALLIANCE OF FACULTY SENATES, THE COALITION OF STUDENT LEADERS, AND THE STAFF ALLIANCE. ((Voting members shall communicate their governance activities to their constituencies, and to their supervisors or professors as appropriate, on a regular basis)). ((B. Selection Faculty and staff representatives to the Council shall be selected in such a manner as prescribed by the local governance groups. Student representatives shall be selected by the Coalition of Student Leaders as prescribed in the Coalition Constitution.)) ((C. Terms of office Representatives to the Council shall serve a minimum of a one year term.)) ((D. Qualifications Representatives to the Council should have prior shared governance experience wherever possible.)) ((E. Recall of members Any member may be recalled by the body by which the member was chosen. The local constituent body shall select a replacement to complete the term of office.)) B. ((F.)) Ex-officio, non-voting membership Ex-officio, non-voting membership in the Council shall include the President of the University, the chancellor or other administrative officer from each MAU, and any other such person or persons as the President may designate, and such others as determined by the Council. C. ((G.)) ((Official Spokesperson)) OFFICERS 1. ((Election)) ((The official spokesperson for the Council shall be elected by and from the voting membership by a majority vote.)) THE SPOKESPERSON OF THE ALLIANCE OF FACULTY SENATES, THE SPOKESPERSON OF THE COALITION OF STUDENT LEADERS AND THE CHAIR OF THE STAFF ALLIANCE SHALL SERVE AS COUNCIL CO-CHAIRS. 2. Duties ((The official spokesperson for the)) Council CO-CHAIRS shall (a) preside over all meetings of the Council ON A ROTATING BASIS. b) represent the Council, and c) serve as primary Council contactS to the President of the University and the Board of Regents. D. ((H. )) Task Forces The Board of Regents, the President of the University, or the Council may establish task forces to consider complex system issues pursuant to Council responsibilities. These task forces shall, in all cases, include governance representatives appointed by the Council. These task forces are a formal part of shared governance, and as such, are subject to the Alaska Open Meeting Law, per V.C., below. ARTICLE V. MEETINGS A. Regular and special meetings The Council shall meet a minimum of ((six)) FOUR times per year BY AUDIO OR VIDEO CONFERENCE. At least once per year, all governance group spokespersons shall meet with the President of the University to identify system issues and plan for the coming year. Special Council meetings may be called by the Board of Regents, the President of the University, the ((spokesperson)) CO-CHAIRS of the Council, or on petition of one-third ((of the membership)) of the Council MEMBERSHIP. B. Voting Voting shall be by simple majority of the full voting membership except for amendments to the constitutions or bylaws. Amendments to the Council constitution affecting membership rights shall require a consensus with no negative votes. THE COUNCIL SHALL TAKE NO LEGISLATIVE ACTION ON SYSTEM ISSUES OTHER THAN ENDORSEMENT OF THE ACTIONS OF THE OTHER SYSTEM GOVERNANCE GROUPS OR TO COORDINATE ACTIONS BETWEEN THEM UNLESS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF REGENTS, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OR THE COUNCIL CO- CHAIRS. C. Open Meetings All meetings of the Council are subject to the Alaska Open Meetings Law, AS 44.62.3101 and any additions or exemptions thereto, and Regents' Policy 02.06.01 and university regulations 02.06.01 through 02.06.04. This means that meetings of the Council are open to the public, agendas must be posted, and meeting records kept. Council activities shall be regularly communicated to the university community. ARTICLE VI. QUORUM A minimum of a simple majority of the voting membership shall constitute a quorum. ARTICLE VII. PARLIAMENTARY AUTHORITY The parliamentary authority shall be the latest edition of Robert's Rules of Order. ARTICLE VIII. CONSTITUTIONS AND BYLAWS,AMENDMENTS, APPROVAL A. Constitutions and bylaws The Council constitution and bylaws, once passed by the Council, shall be transmitted to the President of the University for approval and to the Board of Regents for action. Copies of Council constitutions and bylaws shall be maintained in the system governance office. B. Amendments; distribution prior to voting Amendments to the constitution and bylaws shall be sent to all members of the Council at least 30 days prior to the meeting at which they will be considered. Amendments to the Council constitution affecting membership rights shall require consensus with no negative vote. C. Transmittal to the President and Board of Regents for approval Amendments passed by the Council shall be sent to the President of the University for approval and for transmission to the Board of Regents. ARTICLE IX. REVIEW AND TRANSMITTAL OF PROPOSALS A. Review Administrative proposals and issues affecting the university system or system community shall be submitted to the executive officer who shall send the items to the ((Council)) ALLIANCE OF FACULTY SENATES, THE COALITION OF STUDENT LEADERS, THE STAFF ALLIANCE, AND THEIR RESPECTIVE LOCAL GOVERNANCE GROUPS for review as appropriate. THE COUNCIL CO-CHAIRS MAY SCHEDULE THE PROPOSALS FOR FACULTY, STUDENT AND STAFF LEADER DISCUSSION AT A COUNCIL MEETING AND ((The Council shall)) respond to these proposals and issues within 40 days after receipt from the executive officer. Those administrative proposals submitted in the summer months shall be acted upon by the Council by October 15. Responses shall be transmitted to the executive officer for compilation and submission to the President of the University. Proposals requiring immediate implementation for compliance with state or federal law shall be submitted to the Council for review, but may be implemented prior to their action. B. Transmittal to the President The executive officer shall submit the original proposal, together with the majority and minority views, in writing to the President of the University for information or action as appropriate. C. Transmittal to the Board of Regents The ((spokesperson)) CO-CHAIRS for the Council may present Council views, including majority and minority views, in writing directly to the Board of Regents as a regular agenda item of the Board on any issue within the purview of shared governance. The Council may also present its views to Board committees as appropriate. ARTICLE X. ACTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT, AND BOARD OF REGENTS A. Action by the President The President of the University shall, in writing, approve, disapprove, or modify a Council actopm, and notify the ((spokesperson)) COUNCIL CO-CHAIRS and the executive officer within forty-five (45) days of receiving notification of the action ((by)) FROM the executive officer. B. Modifications by the President The President of the University may modify a Council action if the modification does not effectively contravene or nullify the purpose or principle involved in the action. C. Disapprovals The President of the University shall inform the Council of the reasons for any disapproval or modification within one month of disapproving or modifying a Council action. D. Board of Regents notification and action Council actions which are modified or disapproved by the President of the University, together with the statement of reasons, shall be placed on the next Board of Regents' meeting agenda for the information of the Board if requested by the Council. At the request of either the President of the University or the Council, the Council action which has been modified or disapproved shall be brought before the Board for action. The decision of the Board of Regents is final. ARTICLE XI. HANDBOOK The Council shall annually submit a directory of Council members, a description of the Council and how it works, and the annual Council calendar to the executive officer for inclusion in the governance handbook. This handbook shall be distributed to the Board of Regents and to the shared governance groups. ARTICLE XII. REPORTS The Council shall annually prepare a report of activities. These shall be submitted to the executive officer for compilation ((into a single annual report of governance activities)) for submission to the President of the University and the Board of Regents. The executive officer shall maintain system governance communications via electronic mail and prepare system governance news for inclusion in electronic and printed newsletters. ************************ ATTACHMENT 59/10 UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #59 NOVEMBER 13, 1995 COMMITTEE REPORT FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE - Barbara Alexander, Chair The Faculty Affairs' Committee convened to address issues currently under discussion and critical to faculty: consequences and implications of new compensation policy, new evaluation process and workload distribution, tenure and promotion process, appeals and grievance policies. The Committee also responded to the Chancellor's "need for policy" memorandum Re: "Amorous Relationships" and "Sexual Harassment". General agreement as to the severity of the issue was expressed, but there was also the recognition that policies other than the most generally phrased appeal to professional integrity would not necessarily resolve conflict situations already created. The committee's motion to adopt the AAUP policy statement on "Concensual Sexual (Amorous) Relations between Faculty and Students" is included in the Senate agenda as attachment 59/8. Members of the Committee responded to other policy review issues with serious concern and expressed consternation regarding the review process and its intent. Examining the Draft re: Dispute resolution policy and regulation, considerable discrepancies from established policies such as AAUP and AFT were noted. Recommendations and clarifications were forwarded for presentation at the Alliance Meeting in Anchorage on Oct. 26 and 27. It appears to be of utmost importance that all faculty be fully informed and keep especially alert to the intents and motivations behind so many major policy reviews and changes so soon after Program Assessment and Recommendations following the change in policy governing financial exigency. ************************ ATTACHMENT 59/11 UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #59 NOVEMBER 13, 1995 COMMITTEE REPORT FACULTY APPEALS AND OVERSIGHT - Diane Bischak, Chair The Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee has met three times. In the first meeting a chair was selected and the charge of the committee was discussed. This discussion continued through the second meeting. At the third meeting the following motion was approved: The UAF Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee moves to adopt the following as the charge of this committee. (1) A promotion/tenure appeals subcommittee composed of five tenured faculty will hear all promotion and tenure reconsideration requests and report its findings to the Chancellor according to University of Alaska Fairbanks Regulations, Section IV, B, 4. The subcommittee will be selected by the Chair of the Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee and will not include faculty from the units in which the requests for reconsideration originated. No two faculty from the same unit, as currently elected to the committee, will be selected for the subcommittee. (2) Committee members shall constitute a hearing panel to serve as needed on grievance hearing panels. (3) Committee members shall oversee the process of evaluation of academic administrators. (4) A non-retention appeals subcommittee composed of five tenured faculty will hear all non-retention reconsideration requests and report its findings to the Chancellor. This subcommittee will conduct business in the same fashion as the promotion/tenure reconsideration subcommittee, i.e., will review the available documents and make a determination on whether or not appropriate policy and due process was followed. (5) Committee members shall review issues dealing with faculty prerogative and make recommendations for policy changes to the Faculty Senate. The following two motions were also approved and will be brought before the Senate at the next meeting: Motion to amend the Grade Appeals Policy so that three of the tenure-track faculty members selected for a grade review committee (one member under point III.B.3.b. and one each under points c. and d.) will be drawn from the Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee. Motion to amend point (2) in the guidelines for Faculty Role in the Evaluation of Administrators endorsed by the Faculty Senate on December 17, 1990 to include administrator positions that currently exist and to exclude those that no longer exist. Staggered terms for members were also determined and are as follows: 1 year terms: David Crawford, Mark Tumeo, Brian Paust, Daniel Walsh, Meriam Karlsson, Walt Peterson, David Stone, Marvin Falk, Greg Goering. 2 year terms: Wayne Vandre, Jonah Lee, Joseph Niebauer, V. Kamath, Alan Jubenville, DeAnne Hallsten, Dale Feist, Nag Rao, Diane Bischak. ************************ ATTACHMENT 59/12 UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #59 NOVEMBER 13, 1995 COMMITTEE REPORT FACULTY DEVELOPMENT, ASSESSMENT & IMPROVEMENT - Victoria Moessner, Chair This semester the Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement Committee has discussed the following items: 1. Featured Faculty -- The Committee at present is finished with the project and it is in the hands of the Provost's Office for implementation. 2. Office of Faculty Development -- so far the committee has talked with Dana Thomas about his role in faculty development and upcoming reaccreditation. 3. November 10, the Committee will be meeting with John Morack about his role in Faculty Development. At that meeting we will also hear from former committee heads for the Usibelli awards about possible recommendations to improve the award process. ************************ ATTACHMENT 59/13 UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #59 NOVEMBER 13, 1995 COMMITTEE REPORT UNIVERSITY-WIDE PROMOTION AND TENURE COMMITTEE Annual Report, 1994-95 Academic Year This report consists of three sections: statistical information, comments and recommendations, and committee operating rules. I. STATISTICAL INFORMATION Tenure: The campus-wide P/T committee evaluated 28 files for tenure. Of these 28 candidates, 13 were in their year of mandatory review. Twenty were concurrent candidates for promotion to associate professor and three to full professor. Twenty-four files came to the committee with support from all levels. The P/T committee supported 22 of these candidates by unanimous vote, one by a 9 to 1 vote, and one by a 7 to 3 vote. Two files had split support at earlier levels, and the committee supported one by a 8 to 1 vote, and did note support the other file with a 0 to 8 vote. Table 1 presents these data more concisely. Table 1. Tenure Statistics (1994-95) Total number of files 28 Concurrent with promotion 23 Mandatory year 13 Supported by: Head, peer comm., dean, P/T comm. 24 Head, peer, P/T comm. 1 Head 1 No support 0 Withdrew 2 Promotion: The campus-wide P/T committee evaluated 34 candidates for promotion, including 23 who were candidates for concurrent tenure. Of these, 21 were candidates for promotion to associate professor and 13 to full professor. Of the 34 files, 22 were supported at all levels of review including the P/T committee. One candidate received support from the department head, a split (2 to 2) peer vote, and negative support from the P/T committee. One candidate received support from all levels of review except for a 4 to 5 negative vote of the P/T committee. One candidate had support only from the dean and a 4 to 4 P/T committee vote. One candidate was supported only by the department head. Two candidates were supported at all levels except by the peer committee. One candidate was supported only by the department head and the P/T committee. One candidate was supported by all levels except the dean. Table 2 summarizes these data. Table 2. Promotion Statistics (1994-95) Total number of files 34 Concurrent with tenure 23 Associate 21 Full 13 Supported by: Head, peer comm., dean, P/T comm. 22 Head, Dean, P/T comm. 2 Head, peer, P/T comm. 1 Dean, split peer 1 Head, peer, Dean 1 Head, split peer 1 Head, split P/T comm 1 Head only 1 Withdrew 4 The Chancellor differed with the P/T committee on five cases; a tenure vote in which the committee voted 8 yes and 1 no, and four promotion votes. Table 3 shows the outcomes of those promotion files. Table 3. Cases in which the Chancellor and the P/T committee reached opposite conclusions on promotion files (1994-95) P/T Committee vote Chancellor decision Chancellor agreed with No Yes Head Split No Yes Head, peer comm., dean Split yes No Head Split yes No Dean Statistics from the previous four years, showing the cases in which the Chancellor's decision differed from that of the Promotion and Tenure Committee, are given in Table 4: Table 4. Cases in which the Chancellor and P/T Committee reached opposite conclusions (1991-1994) Academic Yr. P/T Committee Chancellor # cases 1990-91: split yes 1 case yes no 2 cases no yes 2 cases 1991-92: split no 1 case yes no 1 case no yes 2 cases 1992-93: split (majority negative) yes 1 case no yes 1 case 1993-94: split (majority negative) yes 1 case split (majority positive) no 1 case Tenure and promotion data for the 1994-95 academic year were provided by the governance office. Data for 1990-91, 1991-92, and 1993-94 were taken from the University-wide P/T committee 1992-93 and 1993-94 annual reports. II. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Some of the following comments were presented in this committee's 1994 annual report. They are repeated because the number of individuals actually reading them was probably limited, and because they may be helpful to faculty preparing promotion and/or tenure files. 1. Those preparing tenure and promotion files should make sure that their files are well organized and easy to read and understand. Some files were difficult to review because of poor organization, while others were a pleasure to read. Put most recent annual evaluation first, not last. Make the previous annual reviews easy to find. Basic information needed to fill in the promotion/tenure worksheet (copy attached) should be readily available to evaluators, possibly in the form of a table. Units (department heads) should look at a file and make sure the candidate supplies one which is well- organized and well-documented. File quantity is not necessarily related to file quality. Specifically, committee members have commented that: a) A file should contain a table of annual workload distributions and average distributions over the relevant time period. There should be consistency between workload distributions and evaluation. b) A file and one's vita should have complete bibliographic references including page numbers and should not have abbreviations. c) The research section should separate paper submissions, refereed journal articles, proceedings papers, books, abstracts, and other manuscripts, and have information on journal or proceedings quality. If no other measure is available, total citations a journal receives vs. others in the field may be helpful. d) Reporting of citation analyses, and the number of reprint requests should be encouraged as a way to evaluate research. This would be helpful to the reader as well as the individual writing the file. e) What constitutes a publication? How should abstracts, conference proceedings, and journal articles be counted? What should be the relative weighting? These items need to be defined by departments, but should be in writing so that everyone knows, particularly the individual preparing a file and file evaluators. f) It would be helpful to know the significance of the ordering of authors. g) A file should have a statistical compilation of student evaluations of teaching, specifically, the mean of items 1 through 4 of the general evaluation. h) Peer/head evaluation of teaching should be required. It does not always appear. It is crucial that files have measures of teaching quality other than student evaluations. There is concern that many individuals who look at Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) results have an imperfect understanding of statistics and the significance of decile rankings. They just "look for a lot of black on the right hand side of the form". UAF previously used an evaluation process that explicitly showed a confidence interval with the mean value of the response to each question. Confidence intervals are essential to evaluating SET results and should be part of the SET data. It is misleading to publish mean values to two decimal places without confidence intervals. i) It would be helpful to have a table of annual evaluation results/ratings by year. j) Definitions of words for evaluation need to be clarified and standardized, as does the ranking of words; for example, "sustained, satisfactory, excellent, good, and very good". k) The term "sustained" is difficult to precisely define. Perhaps it should be related to some minimum time in rank. It was suggested that sustained effort cannot be evaluated in less time than 5 years at assistant professor rank and 5 more years at associate professor rank before promotion may be appropriate. l) Units should be careful to follow a set of rules or procedures consistently. There should be a focus on teaching, research, and service. Personality should not be an issue. m) Peer reports need to be specific when noting defects of a candidate's file. Comments like "too early" or "not ready" are inadequate. Comments need to be performance related, specific, and related to policies and procedures guidelines for promotion and tenure at UAF. n) Peer committee members should sign yes or no on the committee report. Minority opinions should not be suppressed, whether positive or negative. o) Promotion/tenure and peer committee members should not abstain except in the case of "double-dipping" in the evaluation process. Department heads should not vote on peer committees for cases involving faculty that they previously evaluated. p) The committee guidelines and/or university policy should be amended/clarified to define who has access to promotion and tenure files and committee voting records. Promotion and tenure files are currently archived with restricted access. It seems consistent that only candidates have access to committee voting results on their files alone. This year, a candidate dissatisfied with the committee vote tried to obtain the committee's complete voting record. A friend of that candidate demanded, of a committee member, to know how certain committee members voted. q) Guidelines for tenure and/or promotion review are presently distributed in mid-September and files are due by the second week of October. This leaves inadequate time for file preparation. The committee believes that it would be helpful to make this information available in May rather than in September. 2. The committee again received excellent logistical support from the Governance Office. III. COMMITTEE OPERATING RULES The operating rules for 1994-95 were unchanged relative to those in effect for 1993-94. The rules appeared to provide a good operating framework but will be reviewed by the 1995-96 committee for possible modifications. John Aspnes Professor and Head of Electrical Engineering Chair, University-wide Promotion and Tenure Committee, 1993-1995 October 21, 1995 ************************ ATTACHMENT 59/14a UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #59 NOVEMBER 13, 1995 MEMORANDUM DATE: October 18, 1995 TO: Chancellor Wadlow FROM: Administrative Committee, UAF Faculty Senate SUBJECT: Appointment of search committee for CRA executive dean The members of the Administrative Committee request that you add one additional faculty member to the search committee for the CRA executive dean, from the list of faculty generated as a result of CRA faculty nominations last month. We also request that you ask the committee members to vote to confirm the appointed chair of that committee. We believe that these actions would bring the establishment of that committee within the guidelines of Senate policy passed on November 11, 1991, and subsequently accepted as university regulation. We understand your contention that this "executive dean" position does not fall under the guidelines for "policy for the search committees for Deans/Directors," but we disagree. There does not seem to be any compelling reason to set aside university policy in this instance, and doing so creates an impression of high-handedness and lack of good faith, which we're sure you would agree is not fair to your effort to appoint a representative search committee. We make this request from the Administrative Committee because the CRA dean search has already begun, and the Senate is not scheduled to meet until November 13. If you decide not to make the requested changes, we anticipate bringing this before the Senate as a resolution on November 13. ************************ ATTACHMENT 59/14b October 25, 1995 MEMORANDUM TO: Administrative Committee UAF Faculty Senate University of Alaska Fairbanks FROM: Joan K. Wadlow, Chancellor University of Alaska Fairbanks SUBJECT: CRA Executive Dean Search I received your October 18 memorandum about the search committee for the CRA executive Dean. As you note, I do not consider the position of executive dean to fall under the guidelines for search committees for deans/directors. The position of Executive Dean, which reports to the chancellor, is different by design from the deans/directors to who the current Senate policy for search committees refers. I also recognize that you disagree. Search committees that reflect the many constituencies connected with a program are normally more effective. Also, smaller search committees can function easier, optimize the valuable time of committee members, and reduce costs. I believe we have a balanced committee in the relatively small (10-person) composition of the CRA Executive Dean search committee. For instance, someone from each of the six campuses is a member; the Council of CRA, which is established by BOR policy, is represented; ACE, the unit which will soon join with CRA, is represented; student, faculty, staff, administration, is represented; the directors, who have a special "community college" mission regarding the communities they serve, are represented; the variety of academic curriculum including general education and vocational education, was taken into account; and there is at least one faculty, student and staff. The committee chair, who also holds faculty rank, is experienced with searches and has support staff in her office to help facilitate the work. The single largest component of the committee is faculty. I do not intend, therefore, to change the committee composition at this time. I have made the chair aware of your request that the committee confirm the appointed chair, and the committee may act accordingly. It seems to me that the goal we should all strive to achieve is an effective search which recognizes the great diversity of programs, responsibilities and geography in the CRA and ACE and which also meets UAF's equal opportunity/affirmative action guidelines. The committee has been working hard to do this and deserves our support. The interview process the committee proposes, for example, will be open to all of CRA and ACE, thus involving every faculty (and staff and student) who wishes to be part. I hope this addresses your points. JKW/kjm cc Prof. Sharon West ************************ ATTACHMENT 59/14c MEMORANDUM TO: Chancellor Wadlow FROM: CRA Faculty Council SUBJECT: Appointment of Search Committee for CRA Executive Dean DATE : October 26, 1995 The CRA Faculty Council supports the memo submitted by the Faculty Senate Administrative Committee to you re appointment of a search committee for the CRA Executive Dean and urges you to implement the solution suggested in the memo. Additionally, we request that the search not be limited to the UAF community but at least be extended statewide. We are aware that you have declined to honor the request of the Faculty Senate in this matter but ask your reconsideration of your position as well as the scope of the search. ************************ ATTACHMENT 59/14d The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #30 on November 11, 1991: MOTION PASSED (with 1 abstention and 1 nay) ============== The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve the following policy for the search committees for Deans/Directors. The faculty of the college, school, institute or other academic unit shall elect faculty to serve as members of the Dean/Director Search Committee. Elected faculty members serving on the Search Committee must constitute a majority of Committee membership. The chairperson of the Search Committee shall be nominated by the Vice Chancellor or Academic Affairs or the Vice Chancellor for Research, as appropriate, subect to confirmation by the elected faculty members. The size of the Search Committee shall be determined by the VCAA or the VCR, as appropriate, but the membership shall not have less than five elected faculty members. The Search Committee may include other members such as a student representative from the unit, a staff representative from the unit, a faculty members from outside the unit and a public member from the community. GUIDELINES: 1. A staff representative shall be elected by the staff from the unit for which the Dean/Director is being appointed. 2. Alternates may be selected to serve, only in the event an elected representative cannot or will not serve. Alternates are not to serve as part-time substitutes but rather as replacements for representatives of the aforementioned situations. 3. Search committees should have membership with good judgement, ability to act on behalf of UAF and be cognizant of their overall responsibility to their unit and to UAF. 4. Committee members should reflect a diversity of interests and elected faculty members should reflect the diversity and cross- section of their school/college/institute/unit. EFFECTIVE: Immediately RATIONALE: The UAF Administration has not followed the intent of the Senate Resolution passed on September 17, 1990. This motion has been discussed with the VCAA and should be acceptable to the UAF Senate and the UAF Administration. ------------------------------------------------------------ The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #20 on September 17, 1990: RESOLUTION (unanimous approval) =========== BE IT RESOLVED, That the UAF Faculty Senate strongly recommends that search committees for deans and directors be composed in majority of faculty elected from and by the faculty from units for which the dean or director is to be selected and that each committee elect their own Chair. ************************ ATTACHMENT 59/15a UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #59 NOVEMBER 13, 1995 REPORT ON THE FACULTY WORK LOAD MODEL OF BANNER Meeting of October 2, l395, by D.F. Lynch Reference: Faculty Load Module, Banner Student 2.0 User Manual, March 1994, Confidential I attended the meeting of the Banner group in the extremely well equipped computer lab of the Butrovich Building the afternoon of October 1st. Approximately twenty five people were in attendance. Cheryl Mann, President of the UAA Faculty Senate, and Rita Dursi Johnson, President of the UAS Faculty Senate participated by telephone. I attended half the meeting as President Elect of the UAF Faculty Senate. NO OTHER FACULTY WERE PRESENT. The Banner Faculty Work Load Module is a comprehensive personnel records and assignment model designed specifically to: - schedule classes and instructors for those classes - assess faculty performance against assigned work load statements - determine faculty performance as measured against specific work load formulae and criteria The Model includes one section for non-instructional assignments and performance. It does not contain any specific section covering Research, Public Service, University Service. The formulae implicit in the model, as used as illustrations, relates totally to instruction. It is comprehensive, and should enable Institutional Research to correlate faculty performance as measured in weighted credit hours directly to individual courses. The Model does not contain information on faculty capabilities, but only instructional assignments for a given semester. As a management device, as a means for scheduling teachers and course assignments, it is seriously deficient. Instead, it is a record keeping computer model which may ease the production of instructionally related historical data for Institutional Research. Cheryl Mann presented the viewpoint that the formulae and assignments are properly determined by Faculty. The answer was that the model will use the formulae, etc., as presented by a as yet unestablished Workload Committee. The participants commented that each faculty member has an individual workload assignment and that there are no standardized measures. As I understood it, bargaining unit faculty would be excluded from the determinations or the Workload Committee. Personal Comment: I would like to know why we need to spend the time and money involving in implementing this new Faculty Workload Module, what use is to be made of it, and who is to use it. It seems designed for a large school district, not for a University with a wide range of obligations from funded research to vocational training and extension work. ************************ ATTACHMENT 59/15b UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #59 NOVEMBER 13, 1995 MEMORANDUM TO: Cheryl Mann Don Lynch FROM: Rita Dursi Johnson, President, UAS Faculty Senate DATE: November 3, 1995 SUBJECT: Report of Banner Faculty Load Module Meeting 11/02/95 I attended this session by audioconference, as did Cheryl Mann and Don Lynch. The meeting was to cover and explanation of the process and the information contained in that module. Prior to the meeting, I met with the UAS personnel guru, Tom Dienst, who demonstrated the current system and explained the data currently retained. There are the usual hire dates, department, and rank fields, as well as the normal personnel fields (salary, benefits package, etc.). Essentially, the only data on workload currently gathered is "Workload Distribution" which consists of six categories (instruction, research, management, university service, public service, and other). A percentage is entered in as many categories as apply to each faculty, based on the Faculty Workload agreements completed by faculty at the beginning of each academic year. The percentages must total 100 percent. This data is gathered by the Statewide Office of Institutional Research and used in the annual document "UA in Review." The University has purchased three modules of Banner for administrative purposes. There is Financial module, a Personnel (or HR) module, and a Student module. The Faculty Workload module is part of the last. The entire module is for the purpose of registering students and providing other student information, scheduling classes, and for faculty information including workload. Per Carol Berg, the SCT (vendor) representative, the purpose of this meeting was to explain what the system can do and how it does it-- not at the "this is now you input data" level but at the process level. Then, she said, a work team must be developed to decide exactly how UA will use this module and to answer questions about issues that arise. This means that the work team makes decisions on a wide range of things, from which of all the available processes within the module it wishes to use, and what changes might need to be made to the generic screens, to which departments enters the data, to which department "owns" particular data (i.e., has ultimately responsibility for ensuring the data's accuracy), to deciding policy issues such as how to describe the specific aspects of faculty tasks. Pat Pitney of the Statewide Office of Institutional Research is the Chairperson of the work team, but the team members have not yet been named. Choosing the team members will happen over the next four-six weeks. Cheryl quite aptly summed up the module as a way to generate statistical data, and advocated that when the time came for defining productivity measures for workload that faculty must be involved. The more pertinent points from the session: 1. The module will require setting up of "rules" for computing faculty load. An example of a rule is "teaching nine credit per term." Carol Berg was greeted with loud hoots when she asked "What is the rule now for computing faculty load." Across UA, she was told, there is no universal agreement, no standard; that each faculty has his or her own circumstance which may change each semester. 2. The module allows credit for non-instructional activity. Rules must be set up for this but are as flexible as "advises X number of students" or "manages Education program." Research and service would be included here. 3. There is a field that allows textual comments to be input. This is an example of an area where the UA work team will have to make decisions--who can input something, and what kinds of things can (or can't) be input. (Use of this field might be equivalent to placing a document into someone's file without that someone's knowledge.) 4. There are two ways to enter data in order to compute workload. One is by "workload rule" which means in this module one term or semester, and the second is by "contract" which is defined as including more than one semester. Cheryl questioned the capability of the system to handle changes in either method. According to Carol Berg, both the "workload" and the "contract" can be changed mid-stream. There was a lengthy discussion on integrating this module with the "HR" module. Such an integration is not automatic, and the work team will have to make decisions about where such integration must be made. The point of having such integration is to have the ability to determine what has been paid, and what it was paid form [sic], i.e., to determine the cost of instruction. Anyone interested in serving on the work team needs to contact Pat Pitney at 474-5889.