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


A G E N D A
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #63
Monday, April 22, 1996
1:30 p.m. - 4:45 p.m.
Wood Center Ballroom


1:30	I	Call to Order - Eric Heyne			5 Min.
		A.	Roll Call
		B.	Approval of Minutes to Meeting #62
		C.	Adoption of Agenda

1:35	II	Status of Chancellor's Office Actions		  5 Min.
A.	Motions Approved:  
1.	Motion to amend the UAF Governance 
Coordinating Procedure to delete the Library 
& Information Technology Users Committee.
2.	Motion to suspend for one year the change in 
the last day of late registration.
		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 - A. Wells						  5 Min.
	B.	Staff Council - R. Pierce, President-Elect	   5 Min.
	C.	President's Report - E. Heyne (Attachment 63/1)    5 Min.
	D.	Faculty Alliance meeting - D. Lynch 		   5 Min.
		(Attachment 63/2)

2:20	V	Public Comments/Questions 			   5 Min.

2:25	VI	Old Business	
A.	Motion to recommend changes to proposed  		  10 Min.
	Regents'Policy on locus of tenure, submitted 
	by Faculty Affairs (Attachment 63/3)
	B.	Motion to recommend changes to proposed 	  20 Min.
		Regents' Policy on Post-Tenure Evaluation, 
		submitted by Faculty Affairs (Attachment 63/4)

2:55	VII	New Business
	A.	Election for the 1996-97 UAF Faculty Senate 	   5 Min.
		President-Elect (Handout)

*** BREAK***							   5 Min.

	B.	Resolution to ratify election of 1996-97 UAF	  5 Min.
		Faculty Senate President-Elect (Attachment 63/5)
	C.	Evaluating Educational Effectiveness - D. Thomas  10 Min.
		(Attachment 63/6)
	D.	Motion to amend the minimum high school gpa    	  10 Min.
		for admission to the concurrent enrollment 
		(AHEAD) program, submitted by Curricular 
		Affairs (Attachment 63/7)
	E.	Motion to recommend changes to proposed  	   5 Min.
		Regents'Policy on Failure to Receive Tenure, 
		submitted by Faculty Affairs (Attachment 63/8)

3:35	VIII	Discussion Items
	A.	Report on Collection 2 & 3 - D. Lynch		  10 Min.
	B.	Discussion of minimum class size policy -	  15 Min.
			E. Heyne (Attachment 63/9)
	C.	Report of the Program Assessment Task Force -     10 Min.
		D. Thomas (Attachment 63/10)
	D.	Status of college/school merit increase		  10 Min.
			procedures

4:20	IX	Committee Reports 				  15 Min.
	A.	Curricular Affairs - Dana Thomas 
			(Attachment 63/11)
	B.	Faculty Affairs - Barbara Alexander 
			(Attachment 63/12)
	C.	Scholarly Activities - Paul Layer  
	D.	Developmental Studies - Ron Illingworth
	E.	Faculty Appeals & Oversight - Diane Bischak 
	F.	Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement - 
			Rich Seifert
	G.	Legislative & Fiscal Affairs - Michael Jennings

4:35	X	Members' Comments/Questions			  5 Min.

4:40	XI	Adjournment



********************
ATTACHMENT 63/1
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #63
APRIL 22, 1996


PRESIDENT'S REPORT - Eric Heyne


By the time of our meeting, the Board of Regents will have met 
again, and the Academic and Student Affairs Committee will have 
had another look at faculty policy revisions, including locus of 
tenure and post-tenure evaluation.  The Senate needs to take a 
position on these issues and stand by it for the next two months, 
building consensus with faculty at UAA and UAS.

On April 12th Don and I learned that the administrations of UAS and 
UAA were planning to spend all 2.6% of this year's salary raise 
money for equity, avoiding the problem of setting up an equity 
system in the short time available before the end of the contract 
period.  I think this is a great idea, and I would love to see our 
administration follow suit, or at least make this option available to 
units that do not want to rush into implementing a merit pay policy.

To save money, the UAF administration has decided to begin 
enforcing minimum enrollments more stringently than has been done 
in the past.  Included in your agenda is a draft list of tasks, 
generated by the Chancellor, for faculty whose classes are cancelled 
for under-enrollment.  The Senate needs to discuss the question of 
minimum class sizes, within the larger context of deciding what 
kind of university we want to be.  We should take the lead on this 
issue, because it is academic policy, which we assert to be our 
perogative, and because it goes to the heart of our working lives and 
the academic lives of our students.  The UAF policy on minimum 
class sizes is very old, pre-dating the Senate, and if it is going to be 
enforced more strictly, it should be ratified or altered by the 
Senate.  Please do not consider this merely an argument over make-
work for faculty whose classes are cancelled--the issue is much 
more important, and is central to larger questions of faculty 
workload and pedagogy.


********************
ATTACHMENT 63/2
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #63
APRIL 22, 1996


REPORT TO THE FACULTY SENATE
FACULTY ALLIANCE MEETING OF APRIL 12, 1996
Don Lynch, Pres. Elect UAF Faculty Senate

The Faculty Alliance meeting was attended by:  Nan Myers 
(Statewide), Don Lynch (UAF), Pat Ivey (Governance), Eric Heyne 
(UAF), Cheryl Mann (UAA), Rita Johnson (UAS), Phil Slattery (UAS), 
Margaret Engel (UAA), and Richard Hacker (UAS).  Patty Kastelic 
(Statewide) attend the last part of the meeting.  The Alliance 
recommends that each Senate approve the attached Resolution 
passed by the UAA Assembly and request that it be included in 
University Regulations.  The discussion of whether or not to 
recommend inclusion in Regents' Policy indicated that this might e a 
fruitless effort as it may contradict the Regents Constitution, 
Bylaws, and perhaps even the State Constitution.  However, it can be 
placed in Regulations.  As presently proposed:

"Regents' Policy and University Regulation, P01.02.01 Authority:

A.	Regents' Policy:  NOTHING CONTAINED IN THESE POLICIES WILL 
BE CONSTRUED TO RESTRICT THE POWER OF THE BOARD OF REGENTS 
TO PERIODICALLY CREATE, AMEND, OR REPEAL THE PROVISIONS 
HEREOF IN WHOLE OR IN PART."

Locus of Tenure:  UAS has voted for tenure to be by MAU.  UAA has 
not made a decision, is concerned about reasons for termination for 
cause.  UAF has the matter under consideration and is to send our 
Faculty Affairs version on Wednesday, April 17.

Assessment Committee Report on measurements of educational 
effectiveness is to be made at the April 17 Board of Regents 
meeting.

Equity and Merit Raises.  UAS believes that their Chancellor will 
recommend using the entire 2.6 percent for equity raises this year.  
UAA may recommend the same matter.  UAF is moving with all 
deliberate speed on this matter.  UAS will likely have a merit 
system in place next year.

UAA and UAS are both undergoing reorganizations which will 
probably result in the elimination of staff positions.  UAF 
reorganization is to occur in 1996-97. 

THE NEXT AND PROBABLY FINAL ALLIANCE MEETING WILL BE ON MAY 
6TH.  THIS IS THE LAST TIME THE FACULTY ALLIANCE WILL HAVE TO 
PREPARE COMMENTS ON COLLECTION THREE, SCHEDULED FOR REGENTS' 
APPROVAL ON JUNE 14, 15, AS WELL AS COMPENSATION ISSUES.  THE 
PRINCIPLE FOCUS MUST BE ON COLLECTION THREE FOR THE JUNE 
REGENTS MEETING.  NEWLY ELECTED SENATE OFFICERS SHOULD 
ATTEND.

Cheryl Mann, President, Faculty Alliance, and Don Lynch, UAF will 
attend the Regents meeting April 18, 19 in Anchorage.

Student Affairs Policy Drafts are under review and may be found on 
the internet at:  
http:/sygov.swadm.alaska.edu/Tracking/Review/students.html

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

From: 	Cheryl Mann

Subject:	Document distribution

Dear Pat,

Today at the UAA Assembly meeting we passed a portion of the 
Principles on shared Governance that we got from Mississippi State 
and I wonder if it would be possible for each campus to get a copy of 
this massage before the meeting tomorrow because I plan to discuss 
it during the UAA report.

Below is the Principle relating to communication with Governance 
bodies as we revised and passed it.

CONSULTATION.  To facilitate open communication and effective 
university governance, the president and other administrative 
officers of the university will proactively exercise diligence in 
consulting with the faculty, APT and classified staff, students, and 
external constituents on issues affecting them.  Consultation is 
characterized by early discussions with the affected constituencies, 
jointly formulated procedures for consultation, reasonable deadlines 
within the constraints of the academic calendar, access to 
appropriate information, adequate feedback, and timely 
communication of decisions to the affected constituencies.


********************
ATTACHMENT 63/3
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #63
APRIL 22, 1996
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY AFFAIRS


MOTION
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to recommend that the proposed 
language in Regents' Policy on locus of tenure (OX-01.05.2c) be 
amended as follows:

CAPS = Additions
[[   ]]  = Deletions

Faculty will be tenured [[within an academic unit of a community 
college, extended college or campus, or school or college of an MAU 
within the University of Alaska]] AT THE LEVEL OF THE UNIVERSITY 
OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS, THE UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE, OR 
THE UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA SOUTHEAST.  Faculty may transfer with 
tenure to another academic unit (E.G., DEPARTMENT, PROGRAM) in the 
same or another [[MAU]] UNIVERSITY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA 
SYSTEM only upon the approval of the faculty and the Chancellor of 
the receiving academic unit.  

	EFFECTIVE:	Immediately

	RATIONALE:	Having been presented to the UAF Faculty 
		Senate for formal review and recommendation, the most 
		recent revisions to Regents' Policy ("Collection III: 
		Faculty Policies," 04.04.04-07 and 10.09.01, 4th Draft) 
		are found unsatisfactory in locating tenure "within an 
		academic unit of a community college, extended college 
		or campus, or school or college of an MAU within the 
		University of Alaska."  Revised language in )X-01.05.2c, 
		specifically the words "academic unit" and MAU," remain 
		ambiguous and subject to interpretation which may 
		undermine the award of tenure as a continuous 
		appointment.  "Academic unit" is, for the most part, an 
		artificial administrative entity, all to readily subject to 
		the contingencies of changing educational objectives and 
		mission and corresponding reorganization of the 
		academy.  The UAF Faculty Senate's amendment to the 
		proposed language, "at the level of the University of 
		Alaska Fairbanks, The University of Alaska Anchorage, or 
		the University of Alaska Southeast" seeks to assure that 
		there will be no termination of an appointment with 
		continuous tenure except as a bona fide format 
		discontinuance of a program or department of 
		instruction, which discontinuance must "be based 
		essentially upon educational considerations, as 
		determined primarily by the faculty as a whole or an 
		appropriate committee thereof" (cf. AAUP Recommended 
		Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and 
		Tenure).

********************
ATTACHMENT 63/4
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #63
APRIL 22, 1996
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY AFFAIRS


MOTION
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to recommend that the proposed 
language in Regents' Policy on Post-Tenure Evaluation (P OX-01.06) 
be amended as follows:

CAPS = Additions
[[   ]]  = Deletions


Tenured faculty members, INCLUDING ADMINISTRATORS HOLDING 
TENURED FACULTY STATUS, will be evaluated intensively [[at least]] 
every five years by peer faculty and administrators HAVING LINE 
AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY OF SUPERVISION (E.G., DEPARTMENT 
HEAD/CHAIR, SCHOOL/CAMPUS DIRECTOR, COLLEGE DEAN0 OF THE 
TENURED FACULTY MEMBER.  INASMUCH AS DETERMINATION OF 
FACULTY STATUS IS PRIMARILY A FACULTY RESPONSIBILITY, 
ADMINISTRATORS PARTICIPATING IN THE POST-TENURE EVALUATION 
PROCESS SHOULD CONCUR WITH THE PEER FACULTY JUDGMENT EXCEPT 
IN RARE INSTANCES AND THEN ONLY BY PROVIDING COMPELLING 
REASONS IN WRITING AND IN DETAIL.  These evaluations will be 
conducted in accordance with the criteria and rpocess for evaluation 
in Regents' Policy, University Regulation, and MAU rules and 
procedures on evaluation of faculty.  NEITHER THE CRITERIA NOR THE 
PROCESS OF POST-TENURE EVALUATION WILL BE CONSTRUED AS 
EQUIVALENT TO THE PROBATIONARY EVALUATION OF TENURE-TRACK 
FACULTY, THE AWARD OF TENURE ITSELF SERVING AS PRIMA FACIE 
EVIDENCE OF A FACULTY MEMBER'S DEMONSTRATED COMPETENCE AS 
TEACHER, SCHOLAR, AND CITIZEN OF THE ACADEMY AT LARGE.  
THEREFORE, POST-TENURE EVALUATION MUST BE ESPECIALLY 
CAREFUL TO BE COMPLIANT WITH STANDARDS OF DUE PROCESS AND 
ACADEMIC FREEDOM, I.E., TEACHING, RESEARCH, PUBLIC SERVICE, AND 
EXTRAMURAL ACTIVITIES FREE OF CAPRICIOUS INSTITUTIONAL 
CENSORSHIP OR DISCIPLINE.  MAU rules and procedures will include a 
process for remediation to address situations in which the 
competence and/or performance of a faculty member is deemed to be 
unsatisfactory.  At any time prior to the scheduled evaluation, the 
TENURED faculty member's Dean or Director may, as a result of 
[[other]] PEER FACULTY evaluations, initiate processes to improve 
faculty performance [[which could include the post-tenure review 
process]].

Once a TENURED faculty member receives an unsatisfactory 
evaluation as a result of the intensive post-tenure review process, 
annual evaluations will take place until the TENURED faculty member 
receives a satisfactory POST-TENURE evaluation.  THE YEAR IN 
WHICH A SATISFACTORY EVALUATION IS GIVEN WILL BE THE BASE 
YEAR FOR THE NEXT SCHEDULED INTENSIVE POST-TENURE REVIEW.  
Unsatisfactory evaluations REFLECTING [[AN]] THE TENURED FACULTY 
MEMBER'S unwillingness or inability to fulfill [[the]] A REASONABLE 
performance assignment for three consecutive years constitute 
grounds for termination for cause.  'CAUSE' SHALL BE UNDERSTOOD 
TO BE A DECLARATION OF INCOMPETENCE DIRECTLY AND 
SUBSTANTIALLY (1) IN THE FACULTY MEMBER'S RESPONSIBILITIES IN 
TEACHING, RESEARCH, AND SERVICE, AND/OR (2) FOR MORAL 
TURPITUDE.

	EFFECTIVE:	Immediately

	RATIONALE:	Regents' Policy revisions have been presented 
		to the UAF Faculty Senate for formal review and 
		recommendation on content.  The section on Post-Tenure 
		Evaluation is an entirely new addition to Regents' Policy 
		concerning faculty status.  The proposed amendment to 
		policy seeks to highlight the UAF faculty perspective on 
		the issue of post-tenure evaluation, and to do so in such 
		a way as to safeguard the enduring attitude and 
		standards endorsed by the American Association of 
		University Professors and associated institutions of high 
		education.


********************
ATTACHMENT 63/5
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #63
APRIL 22, 1996
SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE


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

BE IT RESOLVED, That the UAF Faculty Senate ratifies the election of 
President-Elect on the basis of the following ballot.


BALLOT

PRESIDENT-ELECT


Please vote for ONE individual to serve as the President-Elect of the 
UAF Faculty Senate for 1996-97.

_____	John Craven, Professor
		Physics/GI

_____	Michael Jennings, Assistant Professor
		School of Education

_____	_______________


(Personal Statements follow)

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


JOHN D. CRAVEN - PERSONAL STATEMENT

	I joined UAF in July, 1991, after having spent the first 22 
years of my post-graduate studies at my alma mater, the University 
of Iowa.  My appointments in the Department of Physics were to the 
full-time research faculty, for which we investigated the aurora and 
related phenomena with Earth-orbiting NASA spacecraft.  This work 
included the creation of proposals and designs, the construction, 
testing and flight of instruments or complete spacecraft, flight 
operations, data analysis and scientific publications.  It also 
included significant program management and the occasional 
academic commitment to teach undergraduate physics courses.  It 
was my auroral research that lead to UAFıs ³offer I couldn't refuse²; 
a second career (my first real job!), and the opportunity see more of 
the aurora from below.  My UAF academic appointment as Professor 
of Physics is half-time in the Physics Department (9 months), 
teaching undergraduate and graduate courses in physics, and the 
remainder at the Geophysical Institute (12 months) for research and 
graduate student mentoring.  I am a midwesterner by birth, with a 
generous but not fully matured mixture of conservative and liberal 
views about too many things, and a working temperament shaped 
through many years of association with NASA programs.  The latter 
may not be reversible. 

	I have been a CNS representative on the Faculty Senate for 
three years, with early service as an alternate on the previous 
Graduate Council and as a member of the Senate's ad hoc Committee 
on the UA Learning Cooperative.  I now serve on the progeny of that 
ad hoc committee, the Provostıs ad hoc Committee on Distance 
Delivery and Technology Enhanced Education, and on the Senate's 
Curricular Affairs committee.  Other experiences include numerous 
committees within CNS and the GI, the Chancellorıs Task Force on 
Program Assessment, and the Graduate Program Review Committee 
for the English Department.  All have aided me in my second post-
graduate education. 

	My view of the Senate is that of an organization build upon the 
premise of a strong committee system, and I have had the good 
fortune to be a member of what I perceive as a wonderful example 
how shared governance can work at the committee level.  I pointed 
out in a recent senate meeting that committees appear increasingly 
invisible to faculty members not participating in the Senate or its 
committees, and this is due in part to the lack of even the most 
elementary forms of meeting announcements.  It was not always this 
way.  Alternative interpretations may include the possibility that 
little work is being done or even needs to be done.  I doubt the latter. 
We represent the facultyıs contribution to shared governance and are 
expected to aid in the improvement of our university, but this can 
not exist in name only, it must be made to work, not in the dark but 
well illuminated and productive.  If it is true that we have too many 
committees chasing too little work, that should be considered after 
the present faculty discussions about collective bargaining are 
resolved.  A negative vote opens the door to our reevaluation of our 
committee structure, while a positive vote will remove the option 
and make restructuring as certain as program assessment and 
declining state budgets.  I fully expect, but certainly have no direct 
knowledge, that we would at least retain our role in academic and 
curricular affairs and other functions that do not directly impact us 
personally as faculty members.  It probably means that those of us 
whose terms do not expire this spring could be at the table during 
formation of some new version of this body.  In closing this topic, I 
do not forget that shared governance is a two-way street, and that 
the other lane has some potholes and detour signs in need of 
attention.  Each side has its duties and obligations (clients and 
masters), and we need to take care that we pay some attention to 
the ³art of the possible² when pressing our issues.

	Discounting the state politics of salary issues common to 
many state institutions, I have always believed that the ³gowned² 
university faculty and many others within the university possess 
one of the finest forms of employment possible.  We have, for 
example, a version of flex-time that is the envy of many and, yet, it 
is one source of our dubious reputation with some from the ³town.²  
Few would turn down our health and retirement package.  How do our 
fees for parking compare with those at other universities?  We do 
not have to like some of the particulars and we have every right to 
improve our positions, but we must keep some sense of perspective, 
for the arguments amongst ourselves are heard by others.  Tenure is 
a foreign word to most outside our halls, and now it seems even the 
Board of Regents needs a regular refresher course.  Tenure is 
privilege bestowed upon us to protect our intellectual discourse 
about that which we are knowledgeable.  It is loaded with 
obligations.  We owe it to the citizens of this state to demonstrate 
the benefits of academic freedom and tenure through education, our 
active presence in the community and state, and, forgive me, a good 
old-fashion sales job.

	A wise state-supported university must make certain that its 
undergraduate programs are solid and well thought of.  It does no 
good to talk about building a strong research university if the 
citizens of the state perceive that this is being done at the expense 
of the undergraduate programs and facilities, or, worse, if people 
believe that a good undergraduate education means leaving Alaska.  
Itıs much like politics: remember your base constituency.  Our task 
as faculty members is to strongly assist in this effort, for in the 
end it is our performance that makes the difference.  Do good work 
with the students in the classroom, help to secure a firm base of 
programs, and also continue to distinguish ourselves within the 
state by maintaining strong research programs.  I believe that the 
latter cannot succeed without the former.  I do not mean to suggest 
that the administration should avoid advertising our graduate 
programs and emphasizing UAF's unique contributions, but the 
research institutes are very good at maintaining visibility (e.g., 
³From the center of the Earth ....²) on a daily basis and can eclipse 
the more humble efforts of individual colleges and schools within 
UAF.  As a member of the Faculty Senate, I believe it is our 
obligation to provide leadership and encouragement.  I am not a great 
fan of the contemporary vocabulary of product, production, profits, 
performance, etc., but we must face the fact that the quiet, 
monastic college don of the past is past, and we must include in our 
service a service to the enhancement of our collective reputation in 
an energetic, but dignified and intellectually honest manner.  
Another option is to leave it totally to the administration, but some 
within our ranks always say there is too much administration.  
Perhaps the administration needs to spend a bit more time 
demonstrating just how their contributions are vital and productive, 
as we are repeatedly asked to do.  Their work can then be better 
appreciated.  I have summarized my position about the GIıs large 
staff by saying that I am certain there are too many staff members, 
but that I know very well all those I work with are vital to our 
success. 

	I recall with private glee the rousing report at our last meeting by 
the director of the alumni association on how their target was to do 
without any state support.  Now that is knowing oneıs constituency, 
trusting in their underlying interest in UAF, and going to work.  Great. 
Letıs do our part in our own way within our institutions.



MICHAEL JENNINGS - PERSONAL STATEMENT

I will bring to the position a good deal of institutional history, from 
a variety of perspectives.  I have been a student here, receiving a BA 
in Alaska Native Studies, a Masters in cross-cultural Education, 
from UAF.  My graduate work was done in social policy at the 
University of British Columbia and although I am relatively new to 
the faculty I have been a statewide system officer and an 
administrator at Tanana Valley Community College.  These vantage 
points allow me to see the University in its component parts as well 
as a whole.

Additionally, my background in personnel and labor relations should 
prove beneficial in this period of union organization and system 
wide policy revision.  Should you have any questions concerning my 
interest in serving or my qualification for this position, please feel 
free to contact me at my office number, 6454.  Thank you for your 
consideration.


********************
ATTACHMENT 63/6
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #63
APRIL 22, 1996


MOTION
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to recommend the adoption of a policy 
on evaluating educational effectiveness as described below.

	EFFECTIVE:	Immediately
				Upon Chancellor Approval

	RATIONALE:	In order to maintain our institutional 
		accreditation, UAF must develop and implement a process 
		of educational evaluation.  In addition, the UA Board of 
		Regents has a draft policy requiring such a process which 
		they will consider at their June meeting.   Copies of the 
		accreditation standards and proposed BOR policy are 
		available at the Faculty Development Office.  The provost 
		has named the following team to coordinate UAF's effort 
		in this regard; Dana Thomas (Chair), Paul Reichardt, Joan 
		Worley, Jin Brown, Meriam Karlsson, Ralph Gabrielli, and 
		Ron Johnson.  This team offers the proposed UAF policy 
		below to begin our development and implementation of an 
		educational effectiveness evaluation process.  Evaluating 
		educational effectiveness methods may include, but are 
		not limited to, interviews, transcript analyses including 
		persistence, performance, and course taking patterns, 
		student self-evaluations, standardized tests, portfolio 
		samples, capstone courses, course grades, exit surveys, 
		and graduate employee or employer surveys.   The Office 
		of Faculty Development will arrange a workshop this fall 
		for training faculty in this area.


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

	UAF EDUCATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATION POLICY

In accordance with its mission, the University of Alaska Fairbanks 
has a continuing responsibility to review and improve performance of 
students, faculty, and programs.  UAF therefore establishes the 
Educational Effectiveness Evaluation to describe the effects of 
curriculum, instruction, and other institutional programs.   The 
process will be useful for curricular and institutional reform and 
will be consistent with UA Board of Regents Policy and institutional 
and specialized accreditation standards.

The university shall ensure the academic freedom of the academic 
community in the development and maintenance of this process.

Evaluations shall be conducted with regard to the following:

1)	Student Information - Students will be assessed upon entry to 
the university for purposes of course advising and placement, 
especially in mathematics and English, and for describing the 
gender, age, ethnicity, and previous education of students recruited, 
retained, and graduated over time.

2)	Evaluation of the CORE Curriculum - Evaluation of the CORE 
curriculum will include assessment embedded within CORE courses 
as well as the assessment of students within upper division 
courses, especially oral and writing intensive courses.

3)	Programmatic Evaluation - Each degree and certificate 
program will establish and maintain a student outcomes assessment 
process useful for curricular reform and consistent with 
institutional and specialized accreditation standards.  

4)	Evaluation of Out of Class Learning - An important element of 
a student's overall education is learning that occurs outside of 
classes.  Therefore, an evaluation of those activities and student 
support services impacting a student's education shall be conducted.  


********************
ATTACHMENT 63/7
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #63
APRIL 22, 1996
SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS


MOTION
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the minimum high school 
cumulative grade point average for admission to the concurrent 
enrollment (AHEAD) program from 2.5 to 3.0.

	EFFECTIVE: 	Immediately
				Upon Chancellor Approval

	RATIONALE:	The Chancellor approved our previous request 
		but included a note requesting a higher gpa.  The 
		Curricular Affairs Committee concluded that the purpose 
		of the AHEAD program was to work with exceptional high 
		school students.   Other options are still available for 
		high school students with a lower gpa to enroll in 
		individual UAF courses.  


********************
ATTACHMENT 63/8
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #63
APRIL 22, 1996
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY AFFAIRS


MOTION
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to recommend that the proposed 
language in Regents' Policy on Tenure (0X.01.05) be amended as 
follows:  

CAPS = Additions
[[   ]] = Deletions

Proposed Regent's Policy 0X.01.05
F.5. Failure to Receive Tenure.
{Rearranged}
 
[[A faculty member may stand]] A CANDIDATE STANDING for tenure 
prior to the mandatory year of review [[In so doing, the candidate]] 
MUST PROCEED THROUGH ALL STEPS [[may withdraw at any step]] in 
the process.  [[prior to review by the Chancellor.]]  If the decision of 
the Chancellor is to deny tenure, the faculty member [[shall be 
offered a terminal appointment]] WILL CONTINUE TO SERVE AS 
TENURE TRACK FACULTY SUBJECT TO REGENTS' POLICY 0X.01.07  
(Termination of Faculty Appointment), BUT MAY NOT STAND AGAIN 
FOR TENURE PRIOR TO THE MANDATORY YEAR OF REVIEW. THE 
DECISION OF THE CHANCELLOR IN THIS INSTANCE IS FINAL. 

A faculty member must stand for tenure BY OR in the mandatory 
review year. [[as defined in section 4.b.(1-4) above.]]  If tenure is not 
awarded IN THE MANDATORY YEAR, the faculty member [[shall]] WILL 
be offered a terminal appointment for one additional year of service.

	EFFECTIVE:	Immediately

	RATIONALE:	The previous wording of this policy stated 
		that a faculty member denied tenure prior to the 
		mandatory year MAY continue as a tenure track faculty, 
		implying the Chancellor could, outside of Regent's Policy 
		0X.01.07  (Termination of Faculty Appointment), issue a 
		terminal contract upon the denial of early tenure.  
		Provost Keating stated in a previous UAF Faculty Senate 
		meeting that was not the intent of the proposed policy.  
		Hence, this change in wording better reflects the 
		intention on the proposed policy.


********************
ATTACHMENT 63/9
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #63
APRIL 22, 1996
SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE



According to university guidelines, a minimum number of students 
must register for a class to keep it open.  Twenty students are needed 
to keep a 100-level class open, 12 for a 200-level class, 10 students 
for a 300-level class, eight for a senior-level class and six for a 
graduate course.


CHANCELLOR'S DRAFT LIST OF ALTERNATIVE ASSIGNMENTS 
FOR FACULTY WHOSE CLASSES ARE UNDER ENROLLED.

1.	Track National Merit Scholars currently enrolled at UAF and 
	graduates
2.	Aide to Dean Kirts in work of Enrollment Strategy Board (ESB)
3.	Develop brochure of graduate students on named private gift 
	awards
4.	Conduct exit interviews of students and track those who left 
	previous semester
5.	Develop video on Rasmuson Fisheries Center graduate student 
	projects
6.	Aide to Wanda Martin on student advising effectiveness
7.	Become sponsor of Student Ambassadors working with Saichi 
	Obu
8.	Aide to Chancellor for Rural Educator Preparation Partnership 
	implementation
9.	Teach courses in units other than own
10.	Develop projects to expand UAF contacts with international 
	students
11.	Analyze projects in Projects, Planning & Facilities, e.g., 
	calculate saving in energy modifications
12.	Develop plan for improved signs on campus (signage)
13.	Assist URIA implement strategy for improved UAF's public image
14.	Aide to Administrative Services in developing a strategic plan 
	for utilities
15.	Teach non-credit courses
16.	Assist units/individuals in writing grant proposals
17.	Assist in preparation of handbook on proposal writing


********************
ATTACHMENT 63/10
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #63
APRIL 22, 1996


REPORT OF THE PROGRAM ASSESSMENT TASK FORCE

December 21, 1995

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Preamble

The Program Assessment Task Force was appointed by Chancellor 
Wadlow in Fall of 1995 to review previous efforts to formally 
identify cost savings and opportunities for increased efficiency.  
The task force was also charged with recommending to the 
chancellor any actions which should be taken to improve UAF's 
operations and identify options to be considered when UAF makes 
further budget reductions and/or reallocations.

Guiding Principles

The task force used three guiding principles during its deliberations:
	*minimize impact on students
	*minimize impact on faculty who are central to UAF's 
		missions
	*provide effective management of activities and programs 
		directly related to #1 and #2

Recommendations

*Use external standards to identify reductions in administrative 
	and student services
*Examine the service component of each faculty member's workload
*Review all coordinating centers
*Move all UAF publications to self-support
*Systematically review the productivity of organized research units
*Employ an instructional model to evaluate productivity of 
	instructional programs
*Consider implementing some form of zero-based budgeting
*Review UAF's smallest academic departments and programs
*Examine the cost-effectiveness of "site-based" programs
*Consider systemwide restructuring of two large "redundant" 
	programs

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
February 7, 1996


MEMORANDUM

TO:		Task Force on Program Assessment
		John Craven, Professor, Physics Department
		Charlie Dexter, Professor, Downtown Campus 
		John Phillips, Director, Physical Plant
		Paul Reichardt, Dean, College of Natural Sciences
		Peggy Shumaker, Professor, English Department
		Dana Thomas, Associate Professor, Department 
		Mathematical Sciences

FROM:		Joan K. Wadlow, Chancellor
		University of Alaska Fairbanks

SUBJECT:	Your Report

I have begun discussions with senior administrators regarding your 
report.  As the starting point, I selected certain ideas from the ten 
listed in the Executive Summary and suggestions drawn from 
previous studies that you consider to be worth a follow-up.  Here is 
what has been put into action and some of my preliminary thoughts.

1.	Under-enrolled classes:  I agree with you that minimums need 
to be observed.  The first reports from deans to the Provost on this 
matter illustrate the challenge of achieving this objective while 
also providing required courses in low enrollment majors and a 
course schedule that allows students to graduate in the expected 
time period.  There are options schools and colleges must explore, 
including a proactive strategy that avoids under enrolled classes.  
But I suspect that will not be sufficient so a combination of 
measures may be needed.  These might include, but not be confined 
to, assigning additional instructional responsibilities at some time 
to compensate for a low enrollment class that is taught or a class 
canceled due to inadequate enrollment; alternative assignments 
throughout the university to carry out priority projects that 
financial constraints have delayed or prevented (I have already 
received a number of possibilities); teaching in other units where 
demand is higher (the Regents have also suggested this); delivering 
more courses to rural Alaska or to Anchorage; or alerting students 
during early registration that certain courses will be offered only if 
enrollment reaches a minimum by a certain date prior to the 
beginning of the semester (these would likely be courses that have 
not enrolled sufficient numbers in the past).

2.	Intercollegiate Athletics:  The Athletic Department has 
already been assigned a reduction of $200,000 resulting from 
Program Assessment, which it will meet on schedule.  Other cost 
savings will be explored just like we are doing throughout the 
university.  Because of a frequent suggestion to reduce the number 
of intercollegiate sports, I am asking for legal advice as to how this 
strategy would impact our NCAA standing.  Further, before another 
sport is added for gender equity, I am also asking for legal advice 
regarding our compliance with NCAA gender equity requirements.  
Yet, I want to emphasize that as chancellor, I will continue to 
support intercollegiate athletics unless the Board of Regents should 
mandate elimination some time in the future.  In my view, 
intercollegiate athletics offers a valuable experience for some 
students; it is an activity found in most universities like UAF, and it 
generates community support for UAF.  I also expect private sector 
support, both financial and in-kind, to continue and to grow.  The 
CCHA membership fee, for example, was entirely paid by private 
contributions.  Shortly, the UAF athletic program will undergo an 
external review.  All these things considered, I see no need for any 
additional internal reviews.  As we continue to deal with the two 
issues noted above, i.e., the number of sports and the gender issue, I 
will be in contact with UAFıs Advisory Committee on Intercollegiate 
Athletics, its faculty chair, and the UAF Faculty Athletic 
Representative.

3.	Zero-based budgeting;  This was a popular concept in past 
years, particularly during the Carter years in Georgia and in 
Washington.  Vice Chancellor Rice therefore conducted some 
academic research to find out about the practical results.  Frankly, I 
find them disappointing. Instead, I think that certain of your other 
suggestions (Numbers 4-6 below, for example) will accomplish much 
more at UAF.  These are the strategies I will initiate in conjunction 
with policies and procedures of the Board of Regents and Statewide.

4.	³Consolidate research administration functions²: Your 
recommendation will be implemented selectively in the coming 
months. This matter needs coordination with Banner implementation. 
Provost Keating is in charge.

5.	³External standards² will begin to be used in identifying cost-
savings in student services.  Dean Kirts is in charge and will 
implement them over the next six months as we examine ways to 
become more service oriented.  The NACUBO ³benchmarks² are 
already being used in Administrative Services, as you noted, and 
they will continue to be used.  So that the UAF community is better 
informed, Vice Chancellor Rice will report in future issues of 
Cornerstone.

6.	³Systematically review the productivity of organized research 
units²:  This will be implemented by Provost Keating.  Your criteria 
are a good start.  Proposal submission will be added and possibly 
other factors proposed by directors and faculty.  Some universities 
add the external research dollars generated per space unit.

7.	³Employ an instructional model to evaluate productivity of 
instructional programs²:  Since the Clemson model is based on a 
small number of institutions, the Provost is identifying additional 
comparator institutions.  I want this to move quickly because, in the 
absence of another acceptable model, we are using the Clemson 
information.

8.	You call for UAF publications to become self supporting.  This 
recommendation is complicated by several other recent happenings.  
Program Assessment recommendations calling for reductions in 
graphic services and publications (communications), the 
accreditation report calling for dissemination of more information 
about UAF progress toward its Goals for 2000, and the Task Force on 
Communications that I set up pursuant to Program Assessment and 
whose report last fall caused quite a stir.  Selecting a proper course 
is also complicated by limitations in the financial reporting 
information which does not adequately sort publications for 
classroom from other publications and the growing blurring of lines 
among various ³publication² activities.  Yet, I think there is some 
progress and I expect to provide some directions soon to the senior 
administrators so we can begin to reduce personnel costs budgeted 
on Fund 1.

I am continuing to consider your other recommendations and 
analyses.  The information about UAFıs smallest academic programs 
prompts me to stress that certain ones on your list are unique to 
UAF and are clearly ones that Alaska wants and needs.  Two 
examples that come to mind (and there are others at UAF) are Native 
Studies and Mining.  When others make simplistic cost comparisons 
of UAF with other universities, we need be very frank about and 
emphasize aggressively the contributions made by certain small and 
sometimes costly programs.  I keep saying that above all, UAF should 
not be penalized for meeting a state need.  If you have ideas to 
become more effective in making this case, Iıd welcome them. 

Please look at this memo as first response to your report. And, thank 
you again.

JKW/mjb

cc:	Provost John Keating
	Vice Chancellor Michael Rice
	Dean Carla Kirts
	Associate Vice Chancellor Karen Cedzo
	Executive Dean Ralph Gabrielli


********************
ATTACHMENT 63/11
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #63
APRIL 22, 1996
SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS


CURRICULAR AFFAIRS REPORT FOR THE APRIL SENATE MEETING -
Dana Thomas, Chair

The Curricular Affairs Committee met on April 1 (no fooling) and 
April 15.  The following list summarizes our discussions and 
actions:

	1)  A proposal to allow the transfer of course credits with a 
grade of D from other UA institutions was discussed and declined.

	2)  The approval process of instructors teaching MATH, 
ENGLISH, ETC. via distance delivery or at branch campuses - no 
action taken.

	3)  A proposal concerning recognizing a second minor and a 
requirement for establishing a time in program or completed credit 
hour maximum for declaring a minor was discussed and declined.

	4)  A proposal from Accounting to reinstate Accounting 101-
102 until these courses can be dealt with by distance and branch 
campuses was discussed and approved.  A proposal to delete this 
course had been previously accepted by Curricular Review; further 
review indicated that an extended phase out period was required.

Our committee will be taking up the following issues in upcoming 
meetings.  Any interested individuals or groups are welcome at our 
meetings. This list may serve as recommendations for review next 
year as well.

	a.  Incomplete grade policy
	b.  Credit by exam
	c.  Academic standards (probation, disqualification, 
		Chancellor's and  Dean's lists) - including development 
		of policies for summer and/or terms of less than a full 
		semester; policies for graduate and non-degree students
	d.  Change of grade policy
	e.  Credit/contact hours - level/lecture/lab hours/delivery 
		method
	f.  Petitions
	g.  Admission and registration
		Associate degree requirements/restrictions
		Non-degree requirements/restrictions
	h.  No Basis grade
	i.  Academic bankruptcy
	j.  Auditing
	k.  Credit/No Credit option


********************
ATTACHMENT 63/12
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #63
APRIL 22, 1996
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY AFFAIRS


FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE REPORT - Barbara Alexander, Chair

	Faculty Affairs Committee deliberations were focused upon 
the issues concerning "tenure" as presented in the last drafts of 
Collection III.  Members expressed their most serious concern about 
the change proposed for "locus of tenure" and the newly proposed 
policy on "post-tenure evaluation."  The Committee is submitting 
motions both of which take into account AAUP policies concerning 
academic standards, with special attention to the protection of 
academic freedom.

	The question of administrative status (MAU) for the Prince 
William Sound Community College with reference to the locus of 
tenure needs to be clarified and possibly spelled out explicitly in the 
text of the motion.

	Also discussed were the most current suggestions regarding 
implementation of equity and/or merit salary increases.  Both, UAA 
and UAS Faculty Senates are attempting to resolve the controversies 
regarding this issue.