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


A G E N D A
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #61
Monday, February 5, 1996
1:30 p.m. - 4:00 p.m.
Wood Center Ballroom


1:30	I	Call to Order - Eric Heyne				5 Min.
		A.	Roll Call
		B.	Approval of Minutes to Meeting #60
		C.	Adoption of Agenda

1:35	II	Status of Chancellor's Office Actions		  	5 Min.
		A.	Motions Approved:  
			1.	Motion to adopt a policy statement on 
				"Consensual Sexual (Amorous) Relations 
				between Faculty and Students."
			2.	Motion on American Sign Language
			3.	Motion to adopt a Student Leadership Honors 
				recognition policy 
			4.	Motion to adopt new class schedule.
		B.	Motions Pending:  none

1:40	III	Remarks by Chancellor J. Wadlow  			15 Min.
		and Provost J. Keating
		Questions						 5 Min.

2:00	IV	Governance Reports
	A.	ASUAF - J. Hayes					  5 Min.
	B.	Staff Council - M. Scholle	 			  5 Min.
	C.	President's Report - E. Heyne (Attachment 61/1)  	  5 Min.
	D.	Faculty Alliance Report - D. Lynch (Handout)   	  	  5 Min.

2:20	V	Public Comments/Questions 				  5 Min.

2:25		BREAK							  5 Min.

2:30	VI	New Business
	A.	Motion to approve the BFA in Theatre		  	  5 Min.
		(Attachment 61/2), submitted by Curricular 
		Affairs
	B.	Motion to approve the deletion of the M.Ed. in 		  5 Min.
		College Student Personnel Administration 
		(Attachment 61/3), submitted by Graduate 
		Curricular Affairs
	C.	Motion to amend the guidelines for Faculty	  	  5 Min.
		Role in the Evaluation of Administrators 
		(Attachment 61/4), submitted by Faculty 
		Appeals & Oversight
	D.	Motions to amend Grade Appeals Policy   		 10 Min. 
		(Attachment 61/5), submitted by Curricular Affairs
		(Attachment 61/6), submitted by Faculty Appeals & 
		Oversight
	
2:55	VII	Committee Reports 					 30 Min.
	A.	Curricular Affairs - Dana Thomas (Attachment 61/7)
	B.	Faculty Affairs - Barbara Alexander
	C.	Scholarly Activities - Paul Layer  
	D.	Graduate Curricular Affairs - Robert Carlson
	E.	Developmental Studies - Ron Illingworth
	F.	Faculty Appeals & Oversight - Diane Bischak 
	G.	Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement - 
			Rich Seifert
	H.	Legislative & Fiscal Affairs - Michael Jennings

3:25	VIII	Discussion Items
	A.	Board of Regents Policy Revisions			30 Min.

3:55	IX	Members' Comments/Questions			  	 5 Min.

4:00	X	Adjournment


*********************
ATTACHMENT 61/1
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #61
FEBRUARY 5, 1996


PRESIDENT'S REPORT - Eric Heyne


	Over the next year or so we will determine the professional 
expectations for and working conditions of University of Alaska 
faculty for many years to come.  We will do this either through union 
negotiation or through joint work on Regents' policies and UAF 
procedures, depending on how the union vote goes, but we will do it 
either way.  In order to do a good job, we need to be aware of the 
political climate, the situation in academia nationwide, and the 
range of choices we have available.  Educating ourselves on these 
issues is the most important task we face as Faculty Senators for 
the remainder of this year.

	All over the country public higher education is being 
challenged.  Our situation in Alaska is typical, with fiscally 
conservative legislators asking for more accountability and 
reluctant to fund anything better than a "generic university," as one 
representative described it--though at the recent American 
Association of Higher Education Conference on Faculty Roles and 
Rewards I could find no other system whose budget had been nearly 
as constricted as ours over the last ten years.  We are in the 
position of trying to save the university despite the efforts of the 
state government.  It's nice to imagine future students and other 
citizens thanking us for our efforts ten or twenty years down the 
line, assuming we are able to accomplish something, but in the short 
term we're fighting a lonely battle.

	Higher education is not alone, of course, as all manner of 
social goods funded by government find themselves under siege.  The 
case of universities might be best compared to that of health care.  
As faculty we are being asked to put ourselves in a profit-
accountability mode, to be more productive, to treat students as 
consumers for whom we must compete.  This is much like the 
situation of doctors today, finding themselves working for HMO's and 
asked to treat patients as consumers.  In the process many doctors 
find themselves forbidden to provide the kind of care they believe 
necessary, as their professional judgment and relationships with 
their patients are undercut by the profit requirements of the HMO.  
As educators and researchers we are increasingly finding our 
professional judgment and relationships with our students undercut 
by the profit requirements of the public university.  Many believe 
that health care in this country is degenerating, and some of us are 
beginning to see how higher education may likewise degenerate.

	This isn't the case everywhere, thank goodness.  In Georgia, for 
instance, the governor and the system leadership are committed to 
maintaining and even increasing the quality of their public 
universities, and they seem to be winning the battle against more 
short-sighted politicians.  It remains to be seen what we can 
accomplish in Alaska, although the evidence of continual erosion 
over the last ten years is not encouraging.

	Part of the attack on faculty is the demand for greater 
accountability, expressed through such mechanisms as tougher post-
tenure review, more quantitative workload definitions, and merit 
pay as a tool for identifying both excellence and incompetence.  
Another kind of demand is the pressure to cut costs through 
technological innovation and interdepartmental, interdisciplinary, 
and intercampus cooperation.  Any one of these five demands would 
represent a significant challenge for University of Alaska faculty--
and we have to face all five at once.  The primary mechanisms for 
Regents and administrators to achieve their changes are Regents' 
Policy changes, including Program Assessment and revisions to 
existing policies on faculty appointments and workload, 
compensation, and instutitional structure.  This is going on even as 
we speak.  If we don't speak up and represent our interests, 
administrators will have grounds for claiming our approval of what 
they impose.

Here are some of my personal views on suggested changes.  

	Post-tenure review:  we already have a system for regular 
review of tenured faculty.  Regents want teeth in it, and are writing 
it into their policy this spring.  I think the vast majority of faculty 
are willing to be accountable for doing their jobs, and would like to 
see the few cases of genuine "deadwood" dealt with as much as any 
Regent would.  We need to make the whole post-tenure review 
process an occasion to publicize our success, recognize and support 
changes in academic careers, and mentor faculty who could use help 
in some aspect of their jobs.  We should avoid constituting post-
tenure review as primarily a way to "weed out" certain faculty, as 
an age-discriminatory process, as a threat to the instutition of 
tenure, or as a method for administrators to punish faculty 
members.  Plenty of other universities have strong post-tenure 
review processes in place, and we need to consult them for 
suggestions.  We need to have our say on this now, while policy is 
being formulated by Statewide.

	Workload and productivity:  last year a Senate committee 
worked long and hard on a quantitative definition of workload, based 
on a CNS model.  Personally, I do not think a quantitative model will 
work for the whole university, and there was some evidence in 
support of this position presented at the AAHE conference.  However, 
we do need to develop a statement about the variety and intensity of 
faculty workload, and a model for how units such as departments, 
schools, and colleges can be responsible for fulfilling their 
academic missions.  We need to do this in order to avoid a cookie-
cutter model for all individual faculty, such as a minimum teaching 
load or a minimum research output.  Academia is beginning to talk 
more about the varieties of scholarship, as Russel Edgerton 
explained to us in his visit last year, and we need to take advantage 
of that discussion to illustrate, in turn, the variety of missions 
served by different academic units within the university.  If we are 
to remain a real university, fulfilling a wide range of research, 
teaching, and service functions, rather than just an extension of K-
12, we must convince the public of the value of what we do and how 
our separate missions contribute to the quality of life in Alaska.  
That means, among other things, showing how teaching, research, 
and service support each other, and how they are made up of a wide 
variety of classroom, advising, field, outreach, publication, 
dissemination, and other activities.

	Compensation:  we are being forced to undergo a major cultural 
change at UA, from across-the-board raises and a generous benefits 
package, to merit-based raises and a reduced benefits package.  This 
is painful, to say the least, and it's not going to stop hurting for a 
while.  I learned at AAHE that a lot of universities, more than I 
realized, have long operated with a merit raise system.  However, I 
have yet to see any information on how a university successfully 
shifted from across-the-board to merit-based.  So far we have been 
on our own, as schools and colleges have been setting up faculty 
committees to institute the new Regents' Policy on compensation.  I 
have no ideas at all about how to do this.  But I hope we link it to the 
other discussions currently going on about workload and evaluation, 
so that we at least have a coherent and unified procedure.  One of the 
great dangers in setting up policy for all three of the issues I've 
discussed is that more faculty "productivity" will be wasted than 
gained by frequent and time-consuming evaluations.

	Collaboration and technological enhancement:  if we don't take 
an active role in discussions on these issues, we'll find them 
imposed on us in short order.  Don't wait to be told how you must use 
new technology, or that you must cooperate with another department 
to administer a program--actively look for ways to do such things 
effectively.  The provost's new Distance Delivery and Technology-
Enhanced Education Working Group is one forum, but don't hesitate to 
develop your own initiatives, as individual faculty members and 
especially as departments.  

	If the faculty become unionized, all these issues will still be 
up for negotiation, though perhaps not under the aegis of the Faculty 
Senate.  There's no way around it:  faculty are going to be forced to 
defend their view of the university, account for their activities in a 
profit-maximizing debate, and justify their belief that education is 
not simply an industrial product.  This is frustrating and often 
demeaning.  But I think we'll do best if we swallow our pride, 
recognize that faculty credibility is under attack everywhere, and go 
at the job as non-defensively as we can.  The first step in recovering 
the public's trust is to do good work.  And while we're at it, we can 
try to structure our job conditions to make that good work known to 
administrators, Regents, and legislators.  That's our task in faculty 
governance this year.


*********************
ATTACHMENT 61/2
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #61
FEBRUARY 5, 1996
SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS


MOTION
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve the BFA in Theatre.

	EFFECTIVE:	Upon Board of Regents' Approval

	RATIONALE:	See full program proposal on file in the 
		Governance Office, 312 Signers' Hall.

			********************
		EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR THE BOARD OF REGENTS

	The Bachelor of Fine Arts is a professionally oriented degree 
designed to prepare students for careers in theatrical design.  This 
degree is also the usual prerequisite for graduate studies in theatre.  
The B.F.A. in Theatrical Design's main objective is to give a more 
thorough and concentrated focus into the various methods, bases, 
and applications of all theatrical design.

	Theatre UAF has unique opportunities open for our design 
students.  Our audience counts/house records are steadily growing; 
interest is rising and our program is expanding.  Through a 
portfolio/interview enrollment, the B.F.A. program presented here 
will aid in drawing in new students as well as in retaining those we 
have due to the larger demand of graduate schools requiring a B.F.A. 
of their applicants.

	Resources and equipment needs will barely be effected; in 
fact, in the long run, design faculty will be able to take on a more 
supervisory role in the design process; thereby allowing them more 
time to teach more classes.

	This program will aid the department's productions better, 
will supply a more qualified "labor force" for the mounting of 
departmental productions, and will aid the community by offering 
them (Fairbanks Drama Association, Fairbanks Light Opera 
Theatre,etc.) a variety of better-trained designers willing to work 
in exchange for resume credits.

	In conclusion, I feel that because all the pieces are already in 
place for the B.F.A. program in Theatre, we should take advantage of 
it and add the program to attract more students into our already 
growing program.


*********************
ATTACHMENT 61/3
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #61
FEBRUARY 5, 1996
SUBMITTED BY GRADUATE CURRICULAR AFFAIRS


MOTION
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve the deletion of the M.Ed. in 
College Student Personnel Administration.

	EFFECTIVE:	Upon Board of Regents' Approval

	RATIONALE:	See full program proposal on file in the 
		Governance Office, 312 Signers' Hall.


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

		EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR THE BOARD OF REGENTS

Program/Degree:

	M.Ed. - College Student Personnel Administration

Identification of Program:

	This program is designed to train educators to be able to 
function in student service positions in higher education.  This 
training would include specifically:  history, philosophy, and 
contemporary issues in higher education; management concepts; 
principles of educational psychology, measurement, and research, 
and supervised laboratory experiences in college student personnel 
agencies.

Reasons for Requesting Deletion of Program:

	This program has not been available for several years and has 
no students enrolled  The people who developed this program 
sequence are no longer at the university, and there is no intent to 
revive the degree sequence.


*********************
ATTACHMENT 61/4
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #61
FEBRUARY 5, 1996
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY APPEALS & OVERSIGHT


MOTION:
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the guidelines for Faculty 
Role in the Evaluation of Administrators endorsed at the Faculty 
Senate Meeting #23 on December 17, 1990 as indicated below.  

	EFFECTIVE:  Immediately

	RATIONALE: These amendments delete from the list of 
		administrators to be evaluated those administrative 
		positions that no longer exist and add existing 
		administrative positions.


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

[[   ]] =  Deletion
CAPS  =  Addition


GUIDELINES FOR FACULTY ROLE IN THE 
EVALUATION OF ADMINISTRATORS


1.	All faculty in a given administrative unit will have the 
opportunity to provide anonymous written input into the evaluation 
of their EXECUTIVE DEAN, dean or director, associate dean or 
director, deputy director, and department head.  In small units, 
interviews with individual faculty members may also be appropriate.

2.	A representative sample of faculty will be asked to provide 
written input into the evaluation of the [[Vice Chancellor for 
Academic Affairs and the Vice Chancellor for Research]] PROVOST.  
The Faculty Senate and its leadership will be included in this 
sample, as well as any ad hoc groups and individuals who have 
worked closely with the administrators during the time covered by 
the evaluation.

3.	In each evaluation cycle, a uniform procedure will be used in 
all academic units to obtain faculty input.

4.	The procedure for evaluation of the Chancellor is codified in 
Board of Regents' policy.  The Faculty Senate urges the Regents 
and the President to consult with faculty as a crucial part of this 
evaluation.

5.	The administrative characteristics that faculty will have 
the opportunity to comment upon will include at least the 
following:

	Administrative Tasks
		Building and maintaining excellence
		Resource allocation

	Leadership
		Maintenance of strong faculty morale
		Problem resolution
		Delegation of duties to appropriate colleagues
		Building a team
	Providing a means to involve department heads and other 
		faculty in decisionmaking
	Skills as a mediator between faculty and administration/ 
		community/legislature 
		General leadership abilities

		Academic Contributions 

		General Comments


*********************
ATTACHMENT 61/5
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #61
FEBRUARY 5, 1996
SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS


MOTION
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the UAF Grade Appeals 
Policy as indicated below.

	EFFECTIVE:	Immediately

	RATIONALE:	The existing appeals policy defines the letter 
		grades A, B, C, D, F and Pass as being subject to appeal, 
		while the I and NB are explicitly exempted.  However, as 
		the NB is a permanent grade, it too must be subject to 
		appeal.  It is recommended that Paragraph II.A. be 
		revised.

		The policy does not provide a course of action for the 
		case in which an instructor whose grade is being 
		appealed is no longer an employee of the university but 
		who is willing to participate in the appeals procedure.  It 
		is recommended that Paragraph III.A.5.c. be inserted.

		It appears that grade appeals committees are not always 
		making certain that the student's request for a review is 
		valid.  The committee recommends that the first 
		sentence of Paragraph III.B.4.c be revised.

		The present policy does not identify a clear course of 
		action for cases in which the instructor is either the 
		dean or the department head.  It is recommended that 
		the present Paragraphs III.B.3-6 be renumbered III.B.4-
		7, and that a new Paragraph III.B.3 be inserted.


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

[[   ]] = Deletions
CAPS = Additions


				GRADE APPEALS POLICY

I.	Introduction

The University of Alaska is committed to the ideal of academic 
freedom and so recognizes that the  assignment of grades is a 
faculty responsibility.  Therefore, the University administration 
shall not influence or affect an assigned grade or the review of an 
assigned grade.

The following procedures are designed to provide a means for 
students to seek review of final course grades alleged to be 
arbitrary and capricious.  Before taking formal action, a student 
must attempt to resolve the issue informally with the instructor of 
the course.  A student who files  a written request for review under 
the following procedures shall be expected to abide by the final 
disposition of the review, as provided below, and may not seek 
further review of the matter under any other procedure within the 
university.

II.	Definitions

A.	A "grade" refers to FINAL letter grades A, B, C, D, F, NB and 
Pass.  The [[NB (no basis) and]] I (incomplete) [[designators are not 
grades and, therefore, are]] DESIGNATES A TEMPORARY GRADE, NOT A 
FINAL GRADE, SO IT IS not subject to appeal.

B.	For the purpose of this procedure, "arbitrary and capricious" 
grading means:

1.	the assignment of a course grade to a student on some basis 
other than performance in the course, or

2.	the assignment of a course grade to a student by resorting to 
standards different from those which were applied to other students 
in that course, or

3.	the assignment of a course grade by a substantial, 
unreasonable and unannounced departure from the instructor's 
previously articulated standards.

C.	"Grading errors" denotes errors in the calculation of grades 
rather than errors in judgment.

D.	All references to duration in "days" refers to university 
working days, which exclude weekends, holidays and days in which 
the university is officially closed.

E.	"Department head" for the purposes of this policy denotes the 
administrative head of the academic unit offering the course (e.g., 
head, chair or coordinator of an academic department).

III.	Procedures

A.	Errors by an instructor in determining and recording a grade or 
by the university staff in transcribing the grade are sources of error 
that can be readily corrected through the student's prompt attention 
following the normal change of grade procedure.

1.	It is a student's obligation to notify the instructor of any 
possible error immediately by the most direct means available.  If 
this is through an oral conversation and/or the issue is not 
immediately resolved, it is the student's responsibility to provide 
the instructor with a signed, written request for review of the 
grade, with a copy to the unit department head and the dean of the 
college or school in which the course was offered.

2.	Notification must be received by the instructor and/or 
department head within 20 days from the first day of instruction of 
the next regular semester (i.e., fall semester for grade issued at the 
end of the previous spring semester or summer session; spring 
semester for grade issued at the end of the previous fall semester).

3.	The instructor is responsible for notifying the student in 
writing of his or her final judgment concerning the grade in question 
within 10 days of receipt of the request, and for promptly 
submitting the appropriate change of grade form to the Director of 
Admissions and Records if an error occurred.

4.	If the student does not receive a response from the instructor 
or the unit department head by the required deadline, the student 
must seek the assistance of the dean of the college or school in 
which the course was offered.

5.	If the instructor is no longer an employee of the university or 
is otherwise unavailable, the student must bring the matter to the 
attention of the unit department head who will make every effort to 
contact the instructor.

a.	If the instructor can not be contacted but course records are 
available, the department head may correct a grading error through 
the regular change of grade process on behalf of the instructor.

b.	If the instructor can not be contacted and course records are 
either unavailable or indecisive, the student may request a review 
following the procedure outlined below.

C.	IF THE INSTRUCTOR CAN BE CONTACTED AND ELECTS TO 
PARTICIPATE, THEN A CONSTRUCTIVE PARTICIPATION IS TO BE 
WELCOMED BY THE REVIEW COMMITTEE.  THE PROCEDURES OF 
PARAGRAPH III.A.5.a OR PARAGRAPH III.A.5.b WILL BE INSTITUTED IF 
THE INSTRUCTOR WITHDRAWS FROM PARTICIPATION.

6.	There may be extenuating circumstances when the deadlines 
cannot be met due to illness, mail disruption, or other situations 
over which the student may have no control.  In such a case, upon 
request from the student, the dean of students, after review of 
supporting documentation provided by the student, may recommend 
to the grade appeals committee that the deadlines be adjusted 
accordingly.  An extension of the deadline will be limited to one 
semester but every effort should be made to complete the appeal 
process within the current semester. 

B.	If no such error occurred, the remaining option is by review for 
alleged arbitrary and capricious grading, or for instances where the 
course instructor is unavailable and satisfaction is not forthcoming 
from the appropriate department head.

1.	This review is initiated by the student through a signed, 
written request to the department head with a copy to the dean of 
the college or school in which the course was offered.  

a.	The student's request for review may be submitted using 
university forms specifically designed for this purpose and available 
at the Admissions and Records Office.

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

c.	The request for a review must be received no later than 45 
days after the first day of instruction in the next regular semester 
(i.e., fall semester for grade issued at the end of the previous spring 
semester or summer session; spring semester for grade issued at 
the end of the previous fall semester).

d.	The request must detail the basis for the allegation that a 
grade was improper and the result of arbitrary and capricious 
grading and must present the relevant evidence.

2.	It is the responsibility of the department head to formally 
notify both the instructor who issued the grade and the dean of the 
unit's college or school that a request for a review of grade has been 
received.

3.	IF THE INSTRUCTOR OF THE COURSE IS ALSO THE DEPARTMENT 
HEAD, THE DEAN OF THE COLLEGE WILL DESIGNATE ANOTHER 
DEPARTMENT HEAD WITHIN THE COLLEGE TO ACT AS THE 
DEPARTMENT'S REPRESENTATIVE FOR ALL PROCEEDINGS.  IF THE 
INSTRUCTOR OF THE COURSE IS ALSO THE DEAN OF THE COLLEGE, THE 
PROVOST WILL DESIGNATE ANOTHER DEAN WITHIN THE UNIVERSITY TO 
ACT AS THE COLLEGE'S MONITOR OF ALL PROCEEDINGS.

4.[[3.]]	The dean will appoint a 5 member review committee 
composed of the following:

a.	One tenure-track faculty member from the academic unit in 
which the course was offered (other than the instructor of the 
course).

b.	Two tenure-track faculty members from within the college or 
school but outside of the unit in which the course was offered.

c.	One tenure track faculty member from outside the college or 
school in which the course was offered.

d.	At the option of the student whose grade is being reviewed, 
the fifth member to be appointed by the dean will be a student or 
another tenure track faculty member outside the college or school in 
which the course was offered.

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

5.[[4.]]	The committee must meet within 10 days of receipt of 
the student's request.

a.	During this and any subsequent meetings, all parties involved 
shall protect the confidentiality of the matter according to the 
provisions of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) 
and any other applicable federal, state or university policies.

b.	Throughout the proceedings, the committee will encourage a 
mutually agreeable resolution.

c.	THE MANDATORY FIRST ITEM OF BUSINESS At this meeting[[,]] IS 
FOR the committee [[will]] TO rule on the validity of the student's 
request.  Grounds for dismissal of the request for review are:

1)	This is not the first properly prepared request for appeal of 
the particular grade.

2)	The actions of the instructor do not constitute arbitrary and 
capricious grading, as defined herein.

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

4)	The student has not taken prior action to resolve the grade 
conflict with the instructor, as described under section III, A.

d.	In the event that the committee votes to dismiss the request, 
a written notice of dismissal must be forwarded to the student, 
instructor, department head and dean within five days of the 
decision, and will state clearly the reasoning for the dismissal of 
the request.

6.[[5.]]	Acceptance for consideration of the student's request 
will result in the following:

a.	A request for and receipt of a formal response from the 
instructor to the student's allegation.

b.	A second meeting scheduled to meet within 10 days of the 
decision to review the request.

1)	The student and instructor will be invited to attend the 
meeting.

2)	The meeting will be closed to outside participation, and 
neither the student nor instructor may be accompanied by an 
advocate or representative.  Other matters of format  will be 
announced in advance.

3)	The proceedings will be tape recorded and the tapes will be 
stored with the campus Judicial Officer.

4)	The meeting must be informal, non-confrontational and fact-
finding, where both the student and instructor may provide 
additional relevant and useful information and can provide 
clarification of facts for materials previously submitted.

7.[[6.]]	The final decision of the committee will be made in 
private by a majority vote.

a.	The committee is not authorized to award a grade (letter or 
pass/fail) or take any action with regard to the instructor.

b.	Actions which the committee can take if it accepts the 
student's allegation of arbitrary and capricious grading must be 
directed towards a fair and just resolution, and may include, but are 
not limited to, the following:

1)	direct the instructor to grade again the student's work under 
the supervision of the department head,

2)	direct the instructor to administer a new final examination 
and/or paper in the course,

3)	direct a change of the student's registration status (i.e., 
withdrawn, audit, dropped) in the course.

c.	A formal, written report of the decision must be forwarded to 
the student, instructor, department head, dean and Director of 
Admissions and Records within five days of the meeting.

d.	The decision of the committee is final.


*********************
ATTACHMENT 61/6
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #61
FEBRUARY 5, 1996
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY APPEALS & OVERSIGHT


MOTION:
=======


The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the UAF Grade Appeals 
Policy III. B. 3. as indicated below.  

	EFFECTIVE:  Immediately

	RATIONALE:  Currently, the UAF Grade Appeals Policy does not 
		specify how the faculty members of grade appeals 
		review committees will be selected.  The Faculty 
		Appeals and Oversight Committee functions as an appeal 
		body for issues of faculty prerogative, and thus grade 
		appeals are included in its mandate.  This motion 
		requires that the unit dean select two of the four faculty 
		members appointed to any grade appeals review 
		committee from among the members of the Faculty 
		Appeals and Oversight Committee.  If the student 
		requests that the fifth member be a faculty member, the 
		unit dean will also select that faculty member from the 
		Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee.  The unit dean 
		will appoint the other two faculty members on a 
		committee at his or her discretion.


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


CAPS = addition

				GRADE APPEALS POLICY

III.	Procedures

B. 3.  The dean will appoint a 5 member review committee composed 
of the following:

a.	One tenure-track faculty member from the academic unit in 
which the course was offered (other than the instructor of the 
course).

b.	Two tenure-track faculty members from within the college or 
school but outside of the unit in which the course was offered.  ONE 
OF THESE TWO MEMBERS WILL BE SELECTED FROM THE MEMBERS OF 
THE UAF FACULTY APPEALS AND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE.

c.	One tenure track faculty member from outside the college or 
school in which the course was offered, TO BE SELECTED FROM THE 
MEMBERS OF THE UAF FACULTY APPEALS AND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE.

d.	At the option of the student whose grade is being reviewed, 
the fifth member to be appointed by the dean will be a student or 
another tenure track faculty member outside the college or school in 
which the course was offered. IF THE FIFTH MEMBER IS A FACULTY 
MEMBER, THIS MEMBER WILL BE SELECTED FROM THE MEMBERS OF THE 
UAF FACULTY APPEALS AND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE.

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



*********************
ATTACHMENT 61/7
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #61
FEBRUARY 5, 1996
SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS


CURRICULAR AFFAIRS COMMITTEE REPORT - Dana Thomas, Chair


Since the last senate meeting the Curricular Affairs Committee has 
met twice; December 7, 1995 and January 25, 1996.  We prepared the 
following motions for the Senate's consideration:

	a.  Several revisions of the grade appeals policy

	b.  A new BFA degree program for Theatre.

We have also approved a change in the Geography B.S. program and 
approved required coursework for a B.T. degree associated with a 
Physician's Assistant Certificate.  

We have named Madeline Schatz as the committee's representative 
to the Ad Hoc Committee on Unit Criteria.  

In addition, we discussed Justice's admission requirement proposal 
and offered several suggested changes.

Our next meeting is scheduled for Thursday February 8 at 11:00.  At 
this meeting we plan to consider the following:

	1.  A revised Justice proposal for admission requirements.

	2.  Concurrent enrollment, the AHEAD program.

Dana Thomas will be out of town for the February 8 meeting.  If you 
have any questions or comments for the committee please contact 
acting chair, Glen Juday.