FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
	Sheri Layral
	312 Signers' Hall
	474-7964   FYSENAT


A G E N D A
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #60
Monday, December 4, 1995
1:30 p.m. - 3:50 p.m.
Wood Center Ballroom


1:30	I	Call to Order - Eric Heyne				  	5 Min.
		A.	Roll Call
		B.	Approval of Minutes to Meeting #59
		C.	Adoption of Agenda

1:35	II	Status of Chancellor's Office Actions		  		5 Min.
		A.	Motions Approved:  
			1.	Motion to modify the deadline schedule for 
				add/drop, withdrawal, credit/audit, and 
				freshman low grade reports 
			2.	Motion to amend the policies on course 
				compression and course approval
			3.	Motion to amend statement on 
				Interdisciplinary Studies 
		B.	Motions Pending:  none

1:40	III.	Guest Speaker
		A.	Patty Kastelic, Executive Director for			15 Min.
			Human Resources

1:55	IV	Remarks by Provost Keating 				  	5 Min.
		Questions

2:00	V	Governance Reports
		A.	ASUAF - J. Hayes					5 Min.
		B.	Staff Council - M. Scholle	 		  	5 Min.
		C.	President's Report - E. Heyne 		   		5 Min.
			(Attachment 60/1)

2:15	VI	Public Comments/Questions 					20 Min.

2:35	VII	Consent Agenda						  	5 Min.
		A.	Motion to delete Budget Committee of the 
			Governance Coordinating Committee 
			(Attachment 60/2)

2:40	VIII	Old Business
		A.	Motion on Amorous Relationships  			10 Min.
			(Attachment 60/3), submitted by Faculty 
			Affairs

2:50	VIII	New Business
		A.	Motion on American Sign Language as 			20 Min.
			fulfilling the non-English language option 
			of the "Perspectives on the Human Condition" 
			in the Core (Attachment 60/4), submitted 
			by Core Review 
		B.	Motion on procedure for appeals during the   		5 Min.
			Promotion/Tenure process (Attachment 60/5),
			by submitted Faculty Affairs
		C.	Resolution of censure of Chancellor 	15 Min.
			Wadlow's actions on the CRA Dean Search 
			Committee (Attachment 60/6), submitted 
			by Faculty Affairs

3:30	IX	Committee Reports 						10 Min.
		A.	Curricular Affairs - Dana Thomas (Handout)
		B.	Faculty Affairs - Barbara Alexander (Handout)

3:40	X	Discussion Items
		A.	UA Political Action Committees		   		5 Min.
			(Attachment 60/7)

3:45	XI	Members' Comments/Questions			  		5 Min.

3:50	XII	Adjournment


*********************
ATTACHMENT 60/1
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #60
DECEMBER 4, 1995


PRESIDENT'S REPORT - Eric Heyne

Two more sets of Regents Policy drafts will be before faculty for 
their recommendations in the next couple of months, concerning 
faculty appointments (04.04.04-.07) and research.  Several 
committees will be looking closely at the proposed policies, but all 
senators are encouraged to read and provide suggestions on the 
changes.  Contact the Governance Office for copies.

The UAF Governance Coordinating Committee, composed of students, 
faculty, and staff, has a Health Issues Committee, chaired by Grant 
Matheke. It currently has no faculty membership.  If you are 
interested in serving on that committee, please let me know.  The 
Health Committee will be considering issues such as changes to 
indirect compensation of the sort being discussed at our meeting by 
Patty Kastelic.

Given that we have a very busy schedule for this meeting, including 
some lively issues for discussion, we will try to follow 
parliamentary procedure a little more strictly than usual.  Please 
keep your comments as succinct as possible, make it clear whether 
you are speaking in favor of or against the motion under 
consideration, and try not to repeat what other people have already 
said.  I will try to recognize all members who have not spoken before 
coming back to members who want a second opportunity to speak.


*********************
ATTACHMENT 60/2
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #60
DECEMBER 4, 1995
SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE


MOTION
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the UAF Governance 
Coordinating Procedures as indicated below.

	EFFECTIVE:  Immediately

	RATIONALE:  The actions of the Budget Council and the budget 
		process have changed over the last few years.  As a 
		result, the committee has been inactive.  The individual 
		governing bodies all have some type of budget or fiscal 
		committee to track information.  This committee 
		duplicates functions that are covered in other areas and 
		this duplication is deemed unnecessary.  

		To delete the Budget Committee from the UAF Governance 
		Coordinating Committee requires an amendment to the 
		Procedures.  The amendment requires a two-thirds vote 
		from each of the three governing bodies, ASUAF, Faculty 
		Senate, and Staff Council, and Chancellor's approval.  

				* * * * * * * * * * 

((   )) = Delete

ARTICLE V	Committees

Sect. 1 	The conference committees of the UAF Governance 
Coordinating Committee shall include:

		Academic Computer Users Committee
		((Budget Committee))
		Committee on Transportation and Campus Security
		Intercollegiate Athletics Committee
		Library and Information Technology Users Committee
		Rural Affairs Committee
		UAF Grievance Council
		Health Issues

Sect. 3	Conference Committees Charges

		((B.	Budget Committee

		The charge for the UAF budget Committee shall be:

		1.	follow and study the annual budget development 
			including methods of determining budget 
			allocations among and within the Major 
			Administrative Units of the University of Alaska.
		2.	conduct hearings on the UAF budget as deemed 
			appropriate or necessary.))


*********************
ATTACHMENT 60/3
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #60
DECEMBER 4, 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 


*********************
ATTACHMENT 60/4
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #60
DECEMBER 4, 1995
SUBMITTED BY CORE REVIEW


MOTION
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate recommends that American Sign Language be 
recognized as fulfilling the non-English language option of the 
"Perspectives on the Human Condition" as required by the 
Baccalaureate Core.  

The UAF Faculty Senate further recommends that given the structure 
and depth of ASL courses, that three semesters of ASL (9 hours) be 
counted as we presently count two semesters (10 hours) of other 
languages.


	EFFECTIVE:  Fall 1996

	RATIONALE:  For an inordinately long time, voices of reason 
within the UAF academic community have urged that the University¹s 
Core Curriculum be extended in a way that offers students the 
opportunity of using American Sign Language (ASL) courses to meet 
Core Requirements in the same manner as other languages.  At the 
same time, vocal resistance to this minor change has been 
forthcoming.  The reasons offered for this resistance seem to 
emanate from a lack of awareness in an educated community.

	In prefacing the motion from the Core Review Committee 
urging acceptance of ASL as Core Curriculum credit, we wish to 
address the specifics of the aforementioned objections and to offer 
supporting reasons for the Committee¹s recommendation.

	1.	It has been suggested that there is no ³body of 
literature² associated with ASL that would stand as foundation for 
this language as a perspective on the human condition.

	This objection is perhaps the most offensive to the culture at 
the very center of which ASL stands as core.  First, the implication 
shows little understanding of the concept of culture.  Many of us who 
actually teach the concept of culture refer definitionally to Geertz 
(1973) who says culture is a ³design for living,² or to Goodenough 
(1970) who claims it is ³whatever one has to know or believe in 
order to operate in a manner acceptable to its members.²  However 
one chooses to define culture, all cultures share the objectives of 
adaptation and survival in a specific environment, and maintenance 
of group identity and unity over time.  For Deaf Americans, their 
families, friends, and authentic associates, ASL, as the heart of 
their culture, functions in exactly the same way.

	As a language in and of itself, ASL is not a transformation of 
any oral language, but rather an evolution of the need to 
communicate among and with persons who have little or no access to 
sound.  The language sets Deaf culture apart from others with 
similar sensory loss (e.g., the blind).  ASL has its own  unique 
phonological, syntactic, and semantic structure, with the flexibility 
required to develop new vocabulary and new grammatical structures 
(Friedman, 1977).  It serves the same social and intellectual 
functions as spoken languages.  It also has regional dialects and 
slang.  All by way of explaining that ASL is a unique, evolving 
language and not some manual/digital code for English.

	Note that identity comes not from being deaf per se, but from 
the cultural matter of ASL use.  Further, cultural matters (such as 
marriage patterns, societal structure, and material artifacts) define 
ASL users, documentation of which is extensive and available on 
request from Deaf Community Services of Fairbanks or from the 
Chairperson of the Core Curriculum Review Committee.

	In specifically addressing the matter of a ³body of literature,² 
we speculate that such an objection seems to be that there is no 
accumulation of written literature.  We hope that it is recognized 
that no native language which is taught and accepted as Core 
Curriculum credit has written literature.  Frishberg (1992) 
discusses Deaf traditions of oratory, folklore, and performance art, 
and notes that "...written forms of language are not required for a 
community to possess a well-formed aesthetic in poetry, narrative, 
humor, and rhetoric" (p. 45).  Please become aware, however, that 
ASL culture has fostered an extensive wealth of materials across a 
variety of genres.  There exists a body of ASL history, poetry, 
stories, plays, and novels.  There are libraries of print, videotape, 
and film (Please see: Gannon, 1981; Lane, 1984; Groce, 1980; Miles, 
1975; Klima & Bellugi, 1975, 1979; Eastman, 1974; Bragg & 
Bergman, 1981; Rutherford, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1987).  The 
folkloristic tradition of Deaf America is over 175 years old, replete 
with legends, tall tales, jokes, folkspeech, games, sign play, folk 
poetry, customs, rituals, and celebrations (Rutherford, 1984, 1987; 
Carmel, 1980).  The study of American Deaf Culture has shown 
distinct differences between that culture and the mainstream 
society in social attitude, patterns for daily living, world view, 
humor, and literature.  Additionally, the deaf community in America 
has a long and extensive tradition in all forms of the visual arts 
(Rutherford, 1992, pp. 32-33).

	There are Deaf publishers whose primary focus is the 
publication of Deaf literature and related materials in print and 
electronic media.  Among them are T.J. Publishers, Inc.; Dawn Sign 
Press, Inc.; National Association of the Deaf; and Gallaudet 
University Press/ Linstok Press, Inc. focuses on scholarly 
publication.  Mainstream publishers, including Harvard University 
Press, University of California Press, University of Illinois Press, 
Alfred A. Knopf, and Random House, among many others, have 
published major works on Deaf culture and literature and are 
becoming increasingly interested in the field.  National publishers 
focusing primarily on videotape and film production of works in ASL 
include D.E.A.F. Media, Inc., Sign Media, Inc., and Beyond Sound, Inc.  
Other producers of ASL videotape materials include Gallaudet 
University, the National Technical Institute for the Deaf, and the San 
Francisco Public Library (Rutherford, 1992).

	Persons with an interest to further their awareness of ASL 
culture, literature, and tradition will find useful bibliographic 
material attached to this background material. (See especially 
Corwin and Wilcox, 1985).

	2.	It has been implied that ASL courses are taught without 
standard syllabi and are taught by persons who do not have 
³University-level credentials.²

	The Core Review committee has requested and received 
evidence that conclusively refutes the syllabus rumor.  ASL courses 
are conceived, organized, and taught with as much or more care than 
many courses accepted by UAF.

	The matter of who teaches ASL is significant but ³university-
level credentials² most certainly  are not.  Any University in which 
accredited courses in indigenous languages are available (University 
of New Mexico, University of Nebraska, University of Arizona, 
University of Oklahoma, University of Alaska Fairbanks,) sensibly 
recognizes that no better source of a language can exist than native 
speakers.  Yet we know further that all ASL teachers in the UAF 
system are either degreed or are working to become so at this time.  
Further interest in the topic might be referred to ³Who is Qualified 
to Teach American Sign Language² (Kanda, J., and Fleischer, L., 
1992).

	As additional information, the Core Review Committee would 
like to offer the following:
  -	Modern Languages at  UAF not only has no objections, but 
endorses ASL for use in the core.
  -	The State of Alaska recognizes ASL as a language.
  -	The State of Alaska mandates ASL as foreign language credit 
at the public school level.
  -	Major Universities throughout the Lower 48 allow students to 
satisfy foreign language requirements using ASL (e.g. Iowa State 
University).
  -	ASL is the fourth most commonly used language in the United 
States of America.

	The Core Review Committee and others who endorse this minor 
alteration of the UAF core recognize that changes can be unsettling, 
particularly to persons comfortable with the status quo.  We must 
understand, however, that standing still puts us behind in the broad 
movement towards better education as the central product of our 
institution.  Lamb & Wilcox (1992), in discussing the establishment 
of ASL as a baccalaureate degree program at the University of New 
Mexico, say that ³ ... we were aware of the rather cumbersome 
bureaucracy through which any request of this nature would have to 
move² (p. 165).  But there, too, the faculty and administration came 
to understand the significance of Deaf culture to the American 
plurality and moved toward a supportive recognition of ASL as both 
language and as the central feature of an extensive American 
culture.  Selover (1992) tells us that in establishing ASL as a 
language in the curriculum of higher education we will ³ ... meet 
with opposition.  This largely stems from basic misunderstanding of 
the language and culture of Deaf persons.  Your job is to educate as 
you go - most people will listen²  (p. 160).

	As members of the Core Review Committee, we certainly hope so.


*********************
ATTACHMENT 60/5
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #60
DECEMBER 4, 1995
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY AFFAIRS


MOTION
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to recommend that Regent's Policy 
04.04.05 provide for inclusion of appropriate procedure in MAU rules 
and regulations for responding to any violation of the tenure and 
promotion process at any point prior to decision of either tenure or 
promotion.  

At UAF the Faculty Appeals & Oversight Committee shall be 
empowered to adjudicated any grievance prior to such time that the 
candidate's file is forwarded to the next level of review.

	EFFECTIVE:  Immediately

	RATIONALE:  There is currently no procedure for remedy of a 
		violation of policy and/or regulations during the process 
		for tenure and promotion review, and such procedure is 
		sorely needed.  


*********************
ATTACHMENT 60/6
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #60
DECEMBER 4, 1995
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY AFFAIRS


RESOLUTION
===========

Whereas, the Administrative Committee of the UAF Faculty Senate, 
	in a memorandum dated October 18, 1995 disagreed with the 
	Chancellor's action in setting aside "university policy for the 
	search committees for Deans/Directors" and requested 
	appointment of "a representative search committee"; and 

Whereas, the CRA Faculty Council, in a memorandum dated October 
	26, 1995, supported the request of the UAF Faculty Senate 
	Administrative Committee and additionally requested "that the 
	search not be limited to the UAF community but at least be 
	extended statewide"; and 

Whereas, the UAF Faculty Senate, at its Meeting #59 held on 
	November 13, 1995, passed a resolution, viz., "The UAF Faculty 
	Senate does not recognize the validity of the current selection 
	process for the Executive Dean of the College of Rural Alaska 
	and directs the Chancellor to follow the established 
	procedure"; and 

Whereas, President Heyne, in a letter to President Komisar dated 
	November 14, 1995, expressed the Senate's position "that if 
	procedures developed through shared governance are to have 
	any credibility or validity at all, they must be followed by the 
	Chancellor"; and 

Whereas, the Chancellor has thus far refused to follow to follow 
	existing procedure for the hiring of either a Vice-Chancellor 
	or Dean;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the UAF Faculty Senate moves that 
	there be a vote of censure of Chancellor Joan K. Wadlow in the 
	event that the Chancellor fails to remedy the search process 
	for the position of Executive Dean of the College of Rural 
	Alaska.


*********************
ATTACHMENT 60/7
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #60
DECEMBER 4, 1995
SUBMITTED BY LEGISLATIVE & FISCAL AFFAIRS


DISCUSSION PAPER:  University of Alaska Political Action Committees


The following concepts are offered only as a framework for opening 
the discussions at each MAU in regards to the establishment of 
political action committees (PACs).

In considering the formation of political action committees (PACs) 
at the University it seems appropriate to utilize as much as possible 
the existing Governance structure(s) at each MAU, as well as the 
Statewide Faculty Alliance.
.
It also seems apparent that a pro-active stance is needed to insure 
that faculty concerns are heard by policy makers.  Should the 
unionization drive currently underway within our system succeed 
some of these concerns may be dealt within the context of 
negotiations and the union structure its self.  That said, I still 
believe that a case can be made for a more politically active faculty.  
Public education is state education by definition.  It is through the 
political process that ALL of our professional lives are influenced 
whether represented by a governance structure or a union.  
Therefore, if we are to ensure that our concerns are to be heard 
within the debate, we need to provide policy makers with forum 
with which to communicate and a reason to respond.  In my 
experience that means either money or votes, usually a bit of each!

Assuming that there is a adequate level of interest at each of the 
MAU (Anchorage already has such a body), I would suggest as a 
beginning that:

1) 	each MAU file the necessary forms with the Alaska Public 
Offices Commission to form a political action committee.  Further, 
that the statewide faculty alliance be delegated as the executive 
committee representing the interests of the faculty(s) as whole; ( 
the idea here is to use the elected faculty officers of the Senate(s) 
as the executive committee of the PACs, rather than trying to 
establish yet another set of committees at each MAU).

2)	each MAU use the legislative and fiscal affairs committee of 
their respective Faculty Senates as the central contact for 
legislators, administration and faculty for issues specific to each 
campus.  The Legislative and Fiscal Affairs committee would also 
serve as the working committees for the executive officers of each 
MAU. Issues which have statewide and/or cross MAU foci will be 
referred to a  representative statewide faculty body ( the Faculty 
Alliance ?)

3)	the University PACs establish a initiation fee and a monthly 
dues schedule (membership fees), which should be uniform across 
the three campuses; a percentage of these Moines should be made 
available to the executive committee. 
	
	a) 	each MAU retain the major portion of those 
dues/donations and that a proportion be passed along to the 
executive committee for issues of statewide/cross MA interest.  
Perhaps a 60%/40% split?

4)	membership be voluntary and that membership fees and dues be 
collected via payroll deduction  ( this will require the opening of a 
bank account and all the requisite accounting and auditing of said 
account be attended to )

5) 	each MAU PAC will establish its own policies concerning the 
distribution of funds for the support of issues of concern.

6) 	the statewide PAC will  support the necessary political 
activities to ensure that faculty concerns are heard during the 
legislative process as well as through out the year.  This may mean 
that the statewide PAC maintain a presence in Juneau during the 
legislative session as a point of contact for legislators as well as 
the faculties from each MAU.

In order to asses the level of interest, the Faculty Senates should 
survey their faculties. This could be accomplished via electronic 
mail.  Should there be enough interest in the formation of PACs, a 
working group should be formed to begin the process.