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.