Sheri Layral
	312 Signers' Hall
	474-7964   FYSENAT

For Audioconferencing:  Bridge #:  1-800-910-9620
				Anchorage:  561-9620

Monday, May 13, 1996
1:30 p.m. - 4:15 p.m.
Wood Center Ballroom

1:30	I	Call to Order - Eric Heyne				5 Min.
		A.	Roll Call
		B.	Approval of Minutes to Meeting #63
		C.	Adoption of Agenda

1:35	II	Status of Chancellor's Office Actions		  	5 Min.
		A.	Motions Approved:  
			1.	Motion to recommend the adoption of a policy 
				on evaluating educational effectiveness.
		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/C. Wheeler			  	5 Min.
	B.	Staff Council - M. Scholle	 			5 Min.
	C.	President's Report - E. Heyne (Attachment 64/1) 	5 Min.
		Correspondence with Chancellor Wadlow 
		(Attachment 64/2)
	D.	Faculty Alliance meeting - D. Lynch (Attachment 64/3)   5 Min.
	E.	Report on the Western States Association of     	5 Min.
		Faculty Governance - M. Jenning  (Handout)

2:25	V	Public Comments/Questions 			  	5 Min.

2:30	VI	Unfinished Business
	A.	Ratify motion to approved list of 1996 degree   	5 Min.
		candidates, approved by Administrative Committee, 
		May 3, 1996 (Attachment 64/4)

2:35	VII	Discussion Items
	A.	Evaluating Educational Effectiveness - D. Thomas  	15 Min.

2:50	VIII	Annual Committee Reports 				20 Min.
	A.	Curricular Affairs - D. Thomas (Attachment 64/5)
	B.	Faculty Affairs - B. Alexander (Attachment 64/6)
	C.	Graduate Curricular Affairs - R. Carlson 
			(Attachment 64/7)
	D.	Scholarly Activities - P. Layer (Attachment 64/8)
	E.	CNCSHDR - R. Krejci
	F.	Developmental Studies - R. Illingworth
	G.	Faculty Appeals & Oversight - D. Bischak 
			(Attachment 64/9)
	H.	Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement - 
			R. Seifert (Attachment 64/10)
	I.	Graduate School Advisory Committee - P. Schumaker
			(Attachment 64/11)
	J.	Legislative & Fiscal Affairs - M. Jennings
	K.	Service Committee - M. He'bert
	L.	University-wide Promotion/Tenure - J. Keller

3:10	IX	1996-97 Faculty Senate Members Take Their Seats
	A.	Roll Call of 1996-97 Members			  	5 Min.
	B	President's Remarks (Attachment 64/12)			15 Min.

3:30	X	New Business
	A.	Motion to endorse 1996-97 committee membership,   	5 Min.
		submitted by Administrative Committee 
		(Attachment 64/13)


3:50	B.	Motion to empower the Administrative Committee     	5 Min.
		to act on behalf of the Senate during the summer 
		months, submitted by Administrative Committee 
		(Attachment 64/14)

3:55	XI	Discussion Items
	A.	Report on Distance Delivery - J. Craven 	  	5 Min.
		(Attachment 64/15)
	B.	Changes to student athlete and other financial aid    	5 Min.
		policies - T. Robinson 
	C.	University Benefits - M. Tumeo (Attachment 64/16)  	5 Min.

4:10	XII	Members' Comments/Questions			  	5 Min.

4:15	XIII	Adjournment

MAY 13, 1996


At the last Administrative Committee meeting I asked the chair of 
Faculty Development, Assessment, and Improvement to look at two 
issues:  establishing a policy regarding privacy of SOI's while in the 
custody of the student courier, and establishing an annual Senior 
Faculty Colloquium Series for every faculty member promoted to full 
professor the previous year.

The Faculty Affairs Committee has been coordinating with the 
Provost Council's subcommittee on class size, which will continue 
to work on the resource issues relating to under enrollment and 
class sizes.  I think it is important that the Senate also work on 
these issues, emphasizing pedagogical and other academic 
perspectives, rather than simply allowing the administration to set 
policy based on financial directives from the Legislature and Board 
of Regents.

Discussions regarding Regents' Policy changes have been put on hold 
by President Komisar pending the union vote.  That gives us at least 
another two months to make our case to the provosts and 'Nanne 
Myers before the Regents will consider our recommended changes.  
Unfortunately, we won't be able to negotiate with the provosts about 
these issues during that time, but we can at least be working on 
what we will say, and making our positions known to them and to the 

I have included as attachments in the agenda responses from 
Chancellor Wadlow to our motion on using salary money for equity 
and my letter about her draft list of alternative tasks for faculty 
whose classes are cancelled.

The union vote is obviously the biggest single issue for the next 
month or more.  I will be talking to colleagues at other schools, 
asking about their experiences with unions, trying to get a clearer 
picture of both the benefits and the drawbacks of being unionized.  I 
welcome any information from any UAF faculty member, because I 
am still undecided.

It has been a pleasure working with you this year.  Thanks for your 
hard work, and for those of you continuing on the Senate, best of 
luck with the challenges of the coming year.

MAY 13, 1996

23 April, 1996

Chancellor Joan Wadlow
320 Signer's Hall  UAF
Fairbanks, AK  99775

Dear Chancellor Wadlow:

At the April 22 meeting of the Faculty Senate members asked me 
formally to express our disappointment with the "Chancellor's Draft 
List of Alternative Assignments for Faculty Whose Classes Are 
Under Enrolled."  Many of us considered the list inappropriate, both 
because of the contents themselves and because it was generated 
without faculty input.

We have initiated in the Senate a discussion of academic policy 
concerning minimum class sizes and under enrolled classes.  This  
will dovetail with the Systemwide Academic Council's discussion of 
faculty workload, for Regents' policy revisions, and would also be 
central to any discussion on this campus about alternative faculty 
assignments, such as that currently being carried on in a 
subcommittee of the Provost's Council.  

Many members of the Senate feel that workload distribution and 
alternatives should be decided at the unit level.  Whether or not we 
eventually decide to do it that way, the Senate as a whole considers 
this administratively developed list as premature and totally 
lacking faculty perspective.  

We look forward to talking with you about workload, and trust that 
you will find a way to incorporate faculty input before proceeding 
further in the direction of developing alternative tasks for faculty 
whose classes are under enrolled.


Eric Heyne, President
UAF Faculty Senate

MAY 13, 1996

April 24, 1996

Eric Heyne, President
UAF Faculty Senate
Governance Office
Fairbanks, AK  99775-0680

Dear Eric:

I was very pleased to get your April 23rd letter about the Faculty 
Senate's willingness to help develop alternative tasks for faculty 
whose classes are underenrolled.  This is great news, and I look 
forward to receiving the ideas.

As soon as something is prepared, please send it both to me and the 
Provost.  The information can be used by the Provost subcommittee 
that you mention in your letter as alternatives are addressed.  It 
would be ideal if alternatives would not need to be used, yet it is 
better to prepare.  It is possible, of course, that not every class in 
the fall of 1996 will meet minimum enrollments.



Joan K. Wadlow, Chancellor
University of Alaska Fairbanks


cc:	Provost Jack Keating

MAY 13, 1996

May 6, 1996


TO:		Eric Heyne, President
		UAF Faculty Senate, Governance Office
		University of Alaska Fairbanks

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

Thanks for sending the Faculty Senate's idea to change University of 
Alaska Fairbanks's salary process.  I have discussed the suggestion 
with the Provost and we agree that UAF is so far along in the 
process that we should not change directions now, simply because 
another chancellor is doing something different.  Many UAF faculty 
have already spend much time and talent to develop a faculty-driven 
system called for in the Board of Regents policy that will assign 
salary increases both for equity and for performance.  To change 
directions now, in my judgment, would not be the best decision.


MAY 13, 1996


The Faculty Alliance elected Phil Slattery of Sitka as its President 
for 1996-97.  We heard reports from Anchorage and Southeast, both 
of whom are using all salary monies for equity and not for merit pay 
raises.  Southeast is using Cupa plus 10 percent as its base for 
determining equity.  Southeastern is reorganizing and will have only 
one Dean and Faculty clusters in the future.  Anchorage is reducing 
the number of Deans from eight to four.

Critical issues for the future are:

Locus of Tenure; Statement on the definition of Consultation with 
Faculty Governance; Post-Tenure Review; Faculty Work Loads; 
Outcomes Assessment (or Assessment of Teaching Effectiveness).

The meeting with the Statewide Academic Council was canceled and 
we were told that all issues related to tenure and work load have 
been removed from June Regents agenda because of the possible 
union vote on United Academics.  This should mean that current 
rather than proposed policies should govern tenure and promotion.

The Presidents of the three Faculty Senates or their designees will 
represent the Alliance over the summer.

Reports from those who attended the Western States Governance 
Conference indicate that the new Regents policies are a mirror 
image of those being proposed elsewhere.  In short, our 
Administration is following what everyone else seems to be doing.

MAY 13, 1996


The UAF Faculty Senate recommends to the Board of Regents that the 
attached list of individuals be awarded the appropriate UAF degrees 
pending completion of all University requirements.  [Note:  copy of 
the list is available in the Governance Office, 312 Signers' Hall.]

	EFFECTIVE:	Immediately

	RATIONALE:	These degrees are granted upon 
		recommendation of the program faculty, as verified by 
		the appropriate department head.  As the representative 
		governance group of the faculty, we are making that 

MAY 13, 1996


Curricular Affairs stayed busy this year with a variety of topics 
summarized below:

1. 	Course Compression - motions were passed by the senate 
which require college/school curriculum councils to approve courses 
compressed to less than 6 weeks and all new course proposals shall 
have a section indicating compression formats which are 
appropriate for the course.

2. 	Interdisciplinary programs - a motion passed the senate 
specifying the minimum number of credits remaining in a student's 
program when approval is sought for an interdisciplinary degree 

3. 	Grade Appeals Policy Amendments - a motion passed the 
senate amending this policy to deal with NB grades and to deal with 
situations when the instructor is the department chair.

4. 	Last date catalog issues - a motion passed the senate 
simplifying the last days to drop, withdraw, and change from credit 
to audit.

5. 	Class Schedule Times - a motion passed the senate changing 
the daily class schedule to allow 15 minutes between morning 
classes and MWF afternoon classes.

6. 	Concurrent Enrollment - a motion passed the senate allowing 
the implementation of the Ahead Program which grants UAF 
admission to exceptional high school seniors.

7. 	Leadership Honors - a motion passed the senate establishing a 
student leadership honors recognition procedure.

8. 	Initiation and deletion of degree programs - A BFA in Theater 
was approved, a B.S. in Geography - Environmental Studies was 
approved, and the MAT in Music and the M.Ed. in College Student 
Personnel Administration were deleted.

9. 	Other curricular issues - our committee dealt with many 
issues which do not come before the senate per senate policy.  These 
included, for example, approval of specific B.T. requirements and 
clarifications concerning course numbering.

Curricular Affairs met every two weeks during the 95-96 academic 
year to deal with these issues and many others which did not result 
in further action.

Issues for Curricular Affairs next year include the following:

a. 	Review of the status of the major.  Are UAF's standards for 
linkage of courses in the major appropriate?  Are the directions of 
our majors appropriate?  Should all majors have capstone courses?  
Are our majors modern?

b. 	Consider a policy on program-specific admissions.  The Justice 
program proposed a program-specific admissions policy with a 
detailed catalog description concerning criteria, date of application, 
identification of a faculty committee for reviewing applications, 
etc.  This proposal was revised in cooperation with Curricular 
Affairs, passed by the senate, then denied by the Provost.  The denial 
was based upon a philosophical argument against the establishment 
of different admission standards for each program.  This is contrary 
to existing program-specific admission standards for the education, 
business, airplane power-plant and social work programs.

c. 	A review of grade policies.  For example, there is a specific 
policy establishing the criteria for issuing an incomplete.  This 
policy is regularly abused by faculty and administrators alike.  The 
existance of the incomplete is connected in some sense with the use 
of the NB grade.  A clarification of the purpose and use of the I and 
NB is needed.  Similarly, the change of grade policy establishes 
criteria for changing a grade which are commonly abused.

d. 	A review of academic standards.  In particular a review of the 
standards and practices concerning probation, disqualification, 
academic bankruptcy, and Chancellor and Dean's lists is needed.  
Policies in these areas for graduate students and non-degree 
students are needed.

e. 	Course compression standards.  Although the 95-96 curricular 
affairs committee did take some action with regard to course 
compression many of the committee members feel that further 
action to ensure quality is needed.

f. 	The petition process.  A review of this process should be 

g. 	Policies on auditing and credit/no credit options should be 

I thank all the committee members for their hard work and sincere 
interest in the activities of Curricular Affairs this year.

MAY 13, 1996


UAF Faculty Affairs Committee remained involved with discussion 
on and recommendations for compensation policy implementation 
and Regents' Policy reviews ("collections").  The issues of workload 
and class-size policy are closely connected and will have to be 
addressed in future meetings of Faculty Affairs.  Several studies on 
workload have been conducted in the recent past and should be 
consulted.  (cf. AAUP reports)

Norm Swazo serves as representative of the Faculty Affairs 
Committee to the Provost Council's Ad Hoc Committee on 
Underenrolled Classes.  The Ad Hoc Committee met on 4/30/96 to 
consider what steps are to be taken to meet the Chancellor's request 
for a campus-wide policy by Spring semester 1997.  Provost Keating 
emphasized that the review of classes having underenrollment 
(relative to current criteria of minimum class size by level) is an 
"efficiency study," not a "productivity study."  The issue is in part a 
response to complaints from UAA and UAS faculty about UAF being 
"overstaffed" with full-time faculty with significant teaching at the 
other campuses being handled unfairly with adjunct faculty.  The 
Provost reported that by comparison with a survey on "the 
proportion of full-time faculty to adjunct faculty," UAF falls "in the 
middle of the pack."  In considering what counts as an "underenrolled 
class," the Ad Hoc Committee has identified "clear exceptions" to 
the stated limits (20 for 100-level; 12 for 200-level; 10 for 300-
level; 8 for 400-level; 6 for graduate course).  Exceptions include:  
lab stations in Music and Art; undergrad/graduate combination 
courses; cross-listed courses; practicums; 060/070 in English and 
Math; 600-level courses; theses/dissertation courses; independent 
study courses; trial courses.  Individual case exceptions are also 
allowable following discussions between departments and the 
respective college dean.  Provost Keating favors a policy that is 
relatively "soft" on numbers criteria, yet enforceable.  The Provost 
also sees such a policy going hand-in-hand with reforms in course 
scheduling (faculty may not get preference for some courses, e.g., 
when courses in a department are offered at the same class-hour 
and so compete for student enrollment).  The Ad Hoc Committee 
plans another meeting in May for a review of data provided by 
Institutional Research staff.

MAY 13, 1996


The Graduate Curricular Affairs Commitee met a number of times 
during the academic year to review and approve thirty graduate 
academic change requests.   The Committee forwarded to the Senate 
a motion to delete the M.Ed. in College Student Personnel.  Other 
changes approved include six new STAT courses and two new PETE 
courses; addition of a non-thesis option for the M.S. in Resource 
Economics; and course changes in Psychology, Chemistry, Natural 
Resource Management and Fisheries.  Considerable time was spent on 
the Journalism & Broadcasting new course requests and the issue of 
course compression.  

MAY 13, 1996


The Standing Committee for Scholarly Activities did not meet during 
the 1995-1996 Senate session.  There was no interest in meeting 
expressed by the committee members and little or no Senate 
business was referred to the committee.  The committee was asked 
to look over the proposed Regents Policy and to comment on the 
impact on research and creative activity.  This was carried out by 
the chairman without consultation with the rest of the committee. 
The chairman also participated in the Research Working Group.

In November 1995, I presented a report questioning the need for this 
committee.  There was an overwhelming lack of comment on my 
'radical' proposals and it was not addressed beyond comments made 
at the November Senate meeting.  The only positive comments came 
from Bob White, the Administration Representative on the 
committee, who pointed out to me that the committee did have a 
history of taking a more active role in the Senate.

Upon reflection, I feel that the committee should exist and can play 
a role in the Senate and University.  I urge the new committee to 
examine this role and to actively seek out tasks relevant to it that 
are currently being addressed by other standing committees (e.g. 
Faculty Affairs and Curricular Affairs) which are currently bearing 
the load of Senate business.  The committee could and should take a 
more active role in the Research Working Group and in the matter of 
patent and copyright issues, perhaps interacting with the UAF 
Technology Development Corporation headed by Meritt Helfferich.  
The question of workload distribution in the context of increased 
research/creative activity loads could fall under the purview of the 
committee.  I regret that the committee did not pursue these 
directions this year.

MAY 13, 1996


In its first year of existence the Faculty Appeals and Oversight 
Committee formally brought under its purview a number of functions 
related to appeals and oversight that were previously performed on 
an ad hoc basis.

1.	The UAF grade appeals policy was amended by the Faculty 
Senate so that several members of the five-member review 
committee will be selected from the membership of the Faculty 
Appeals and Oversight Committee, if available.

2.	A hearing panel pool subcommittee of eight committee 
members was designated.  The UAF Grievance Council may select 
members of this pool to fill out the hearing panel of five members 
appointed when a request for a hearing is granted, as specified in 
Regents' Policy 04.08.08.VI.A.

3.	Two committee members were nominated to serve as the 
faculty representatives on the UAF Grievance Council for next year.

4.	A promotion/tenure appeals subcommittee composed of five 
tenured committee members was formed to hear all promotion and 
tenure reconsideration requests.

5.	A subcommittee on administrator evaluation began the process 
of oversight of the evaluation of academic administrators.  Once the 
draft reports from each of the administrator evaluation committees 
have been completed, this subcommittee will meet with the chairs 
of each of the evaluation committees in order to review the 
documents and to assure uniformity of procedures across the 
committees.  Since the evaluations were begun so late this year, one 
of the first tasks to be addressed in the committee next year is to 
complete the review of this year's process.

6.	Two other subcommittees were formed to address procedures 
for appeals of non-retention of faculty and to review issues dealing 
with faculty prerogative.  These subcommittees will work to clarify 
these aspects of the charge of the committee.

MAY 13, 1996

ANNUAL REPORT - Rich Seifert, Chair

The Committee met regularly over the entire school year and its 
early meetings centered primarily around the advice and review of 
the selection process for the Usibelli awards.  Several chairs of 
those selection committees for the Usibelli award were interviewed 
by our Committee and although I'm not sure a formal report was 
made, several recommendations were passed on to the Provost to 
hopefully improve the process.  In December, Rich Seifert took over 
the committee chair position from the former chair, Joan Moessner, 
who is on sabbatical for the spring semester.

In the spring semester, we primarily talked about options for the 
post-tenure review of faculty, which was being promulgated by 
actions of the Regents.  The Faculty Senate has since expressed its 
preferences in that regard and the final decision on the policy will 
be made by the Regents.

At the end of the year, we still have several important issues 
remaining to be resolved and undertaken, if not in our final meeting, 
by early Fall.  One of them is a recent difficulty with a breach of 
secure transport and evaluation of student opinions of instructors.  
An incident occurred where actual reviews were being read aloud in 
the back of a classroom before the final submissions of the review 
were made to the student collection person.  Although there appears 
to be no formal oversight of this, this does fall under the 
jurisdiction of a campus official in charge of assembling and 
publishing the student opinion of instructors.  One of the simple 
solutions for the problem encountered this year with disclosure of 
student opinion of instructor results before they actually got 
collated and secured, is to simply issue a sheet of student 
instructions for same to be distributed to prevent this in the future, 

	Also, it has been suggested by outgoing President Heyne, that 
the Committee on Faculty Assessment, Development, and 
Improvement be the lead committee in a new effort to develop a 
series of faculty seminars utilizing the faculty who have recently 
been promoted or otherwise honored.  It is possible that those who 
secured sabbaticals or Fulbright Fellowships and whatever, could be 
included in a schedule of faculty colloquia over the year to share 
their experiences and expertise with the rest of the University 
community.  This was felt to be an excellent idea and effectively all 
that needs to be done is to organize and institute it on a first try.  
That will be a major goal of the committee in the next year.

MAY 13, 1996

Peggy Shumaker, Chair

The Graduate School Advisory Committee members include:  Susan 
Henrichs, Mark Oswood, Peggy Shumaker, David Smith, Steve 
Sparrow, and John Zarling.  Here is a brief overview of the Graduate 
School Advisory Committee (GSAC) business during the 1995-96 
academic year.  For the full record, please refer to minutes of the 
GSAC, held in the office of the Dean of the Graduate School.

GSAC was reorganized this year to include three representatives 
appointed by the Faculty Senate and three appointed by the Provost.  
All members are faculty in departments and/or institutes offering 
graduate degrees.  One graduate student member was also appointed.

As a group, we were charged with setting and reviewing university-
wide policies regarding graduate study and to provide advice and 
guidance to the Dean of the Graduate School.

Highlights of the issues we faced this year include:

  **	Clarifying policies governing interdisciplinary Ph.D. students.  
We still need to define these policies, so that the major department 
reviews the applications and makes a commitment to prospective 
students before they are admitted.

  **	We reviewed and approved an option for an interdisciplinary 
professional Ph.D. combining education and management courses.  
Later, Statewide disallowed all "option" approaches.

  **	We strengthened record-keeping requirements, trying to aid 
departments in helping students focus early and develop coherent 
Graduate Study Plans.  We reinforced the requirement that each 
thesis committee meet annually to monitor the student's progress, 
and file a report with the graduate school.  The intent is to graduate 
students in a timely manner.

  **	We discussed at length the allocation of funds to support 
graduate students.  The graduate school currently funds:

	--Travel grants 
		(Most severely underfunded category.  Recommended for 
		an increase in funds.)
	--Chancellor's Fellowships
		(Not as effective a recruiting tool as anticipated.  We've 
		recommended reallocating these funds.)
	--Tuition scholarships
	--Graduate Resource Fellowships 
	--Thesis Completion Fellowships

The selection committee was comprised of GSAC members, plus 
representatives from five additional programs.  We reviewed over 
1,300 pages of application materials, debated the merits of the 
competitors quite carefully, and made selections based on criteria 
published in each call for applications.  The quality of applicants 
was quite high, and many worthy students could not be funded.  For a 
full report on the proceedings and recommendations, please contact 
Susan Henrichs, chair, Graduate Fellowship Review Committee.

For next year, a major issue will no doubt be the proposed 
collaborative graduate degrees.  Under discussion is a scenario that 
would have UAF conferring graduate degrees on students who reside 
in Anchorage or Juneau (or elsewhere), and who hold concurrent 
registration at UAF and UAA or UAS.  GSAC will play a primary role 
in developing policies to ensure quality and to provide appropriate 
academic oversight.

This is an active, hardworking committee.  As chair, I would like to 
say thank you to all members of GSAC, and to the members of the 
Fellowship Selection Committee.  Special appreciation goes to Elke 
Richmond and Kim Dempsey, graduate school staff.  Thanks, also, to 
Dr. Joe Kan, Dean of the Graduate School.

MAY 13, 1996


	I should like first and foremost to thank all the Senators for 
their participation this last year and particularly President Eric 
Heyne and Alliance Representative Mike Jennings for their guidance 
and leadership.  Both have represented you very well in the Faculty 
Alliance and with the President, Chancellor and Provost.  I wish 
further particularly to thank Faculty Affairs for its yeoman work 
this year and most especially its chair, Dr. Barbara Alexander.  I 
should also compliment Dr. Dianne Bischak for getting Faculty 
Appeals and Oversight organized and functioning and Sheri, Kathy, 
Pat and Jeannine for organizing all of us.

	I am pleased that Dr. John Craven is our President-Elect and 
Mike Jennings is continuing as our third representative to the 
Faculty Alliance.  They will I am sure carry the torch into the 
coming year.

	One of the major accomplishments of this past year has been 
the deep and sincere cooperation which has existed amongst all the 
governance groups on all three campuses.  I have been impressed 
with the quality of the people involved, their high levels of 
motivation, dedication to the University of Alaska, and ability to 
cooperate one with another.  There are no philosophical divisions 
amongst faculty in our system of any significance.

	From a philosophical point of view permit me to comment on 
just one enduring problem, and this is the frequent efforts to impose 
what is termed The Factory Model on publicly supported higher 
education in the United States.  This is a model which caused 
failures in the Ford and Chrysler Motor Companies, major failures in 
defense policies in the 1960s and 1970s, and failures in American 
industry in the 1980s.  The Japanese wisely rejected this model 
after World War II and as a consequence were able to beat American 
industry at every level.  The enduring popularity of this model among 
those who would direct--or should I say--destroy publicly supported 
education in the United States can only be explained by the thought 
that higher education is a convenient political target.

	But let us not forget that we slowly but surely are being 
hamstrung in just about everything we do by federal and state laws 
and regulations and University policies, regulations, rules and 
procedures.  Each and everyone of us now faces such a maze of rules 
and no one can understand all of them.  The common thread is 
accountability, an effort to impose factory style uniformity on a 
highly diverse institution.  Our University is special in that we are 
the only publicly supported accredited institution of higher 
education in Alaska, and as such has a wide range of research, 
educational and training functions, a range so broad that one uniform 
system of management simply will fail.  But that has never stopped 
those who would centralize and standardize everything from trying, 
whether it be the Protocols, the Strategic Integrated Operation Plan, 
the Goals and Objectives of the late 1980s, the revised Mission 
Statements, the Strategic Plan, the Program Review, or the Program 

	What we are experiencing is a real effort to limit not just 
academic freedom, but creativity, imagination, and all those 
intellectual pursuits which have made the American universities the 
envy of the world and which have contributed so substantially to our 
economic and military achievements during this past half century.  
It does no good to attack The Administration, because all our 
managers are doing is following what they perceive to be state and 
national political trends.  It is the national trends which are at 
fault, and these I can assure will reverse themselves in time, 
perhaps in five years, when the high cost and failures of the Factory 
Model once again become apparent.

	In the meantime, we as Faculty have an obligation to our 
discipline, to our profession, and to the people of Alaska to make the 
University of Alaska a continuing center of education, learning, 
creativity, and the development and dissemination of knowledge.  We 
as regular (that is tenure track) faculty are a group of 526 people, 
fewer today than a decade ago.  Our junior ranks are increasingly 
being filled by part time temporary people, teaching assistants, and 
graduate students.  Our salaries, benefits, and official workloads 
(defined as FTE student per FTE faculty) are at national norms.  We 
are as a group meeting our obligations to the University of Alaska 
under circumstances which promise to become more difficult before 
they become better.  The national attacks, however, are not focused 
on all 526 of us, but rather on the 293 tenured faculty, on something 
like ten percent of total employment on our Campus, on about forty 
percent of total instructional staff.

	And the attacks and policies and regulations and reported data 
concentrate on one subject and one subject alone:  production of 
credit hours.  Policy makes few references to education, and 
research is taken as a given and hardly addressed especially if it is 
funded by the Federal Government or others.  In short, it is 
undergraduate instruction by tenured faculty which is carrying the 
burden of the attacks.  In my view, quality undergraduate education 
is under severe attack both nationwide and in our system.  According 
to UA in Review, 1996, in the total University of Alaska System 
there are 564 associate and full professors out of a total 
instructional staff of 2,163, or 26 percent.  And those 2,163 
instructors are providing education and training to something like 
33,000 people.  That is not a bad ratio at all.  

	What makes this University what it is today, what has always 
made the University of Alaska special, has been the people who are 
here and especially those faculty who have dedicated their lives and 
their professions to Alaska.  The primary task ahead of us is to 
insure that that sense of dedication to this state, to this University, 
and to this Campus remains not only with us but is transmitted to 
those who come after us.  If we fail in this task, then faculty will be 
moving through a revolving door and all our traditions, values, 
creativity and positive attitudes will vanish.  We as Senators are 
taking the lead in this endeavor, and I trust we shall continue to do 
whatever is necessary to preserve, defend and improve the 
University of Alaska as an intellectually stimulating and creative 
place of learning, to make our institution the finest in the North, to 
meet our obligations to study and understand our Sub-Arctic and 
Arctic world and to educate and train Alaskans for the future.

MAY 13, 1996


The UAF Faculty Senate moves to endorse the 1996-97 committee 
membership as attached.

	EFFECTIVE:	Immediately

	RATIONALE:	New Senate members' preference for 
		committee selection were reviewed and weighted 
		against membership distribution from schools and 




Curricular Affairs
	Sukumar Bandopadhyay, SME (98)
	Carol Barnhardt, CLA (98)
	Joan Braddock, CNS (97)
	John Creed, CRA (97)
	DeAnne Hallsten, CRA (97)
	Jerry McBeath, CLA (97)
	Terry McFadden, SOE (97)
	Maynard Perkins, CRA (98)
	^Paul Reichardt, Dean, CNS
	Madeline Schatz, CLA (97)  
	  Ex-Officio:	Ann Tremarello, Registrar's Office
				Wanda Martin, Advising Center
						, Student

Faculty Affairs
	Rich Boone, CNS (98)
	Burns Cooper, CLA (98)
	^Ralph Gabrielle, Executive Dean, CRA
	Ray Gavlak, ACE (98) 
	Deborah McLean-Nelson, CLA (97)
	Hans Nielson, CNS (98)
	Michael Pippenger, SOM (97)
	David Spell, SOE (98)
	Norman Swazo, CLA (97)
	Jane Weber, CRA (98)

Graduate Curricular Affairs 
	James Beget, CNS (98)
	Mark Tumeo, SOE (98)
	Craig Gerlach, CLA (97)
	John Kelley, SFOS (97)
	Kara Nance, CLA (98)
	  Ex-Officio:	Joe Kan, Graduate Dean.
				Dennis Stephens, Libraries
				Ann Tremarello, Director, A&R
				Graduate Student

Scholarly Activities  
	Phyllis Fast, CLA (98)
	Bruce Finney, SFOS (98)
	Walt Tape, CLA (98)
	James Walworth, SALRM (97)
	^Bob White, Director, IAB


Committee to Nominate Commencement Speaker 
   and Honorary Degree Recipients
	Joan Braddock, CNS/IAB (97)
	John Creed, CRA (97)
	Larry Duffy, CNS (98)
	Koji Kawasaki, CNS
	Rudolph Krejci, CLA 
	Jenifer McBeath, SALRM
	Claus-M. Naske, CLA
	Non-University:  Phil Younker
	  Ex-Officio:	^Karen Cedzo, Director 
				  University Relations

Developmental Studies Committee
	Susan Blalock, English, CLA (97)
	John Bruder, Bristol Bay CRA (97)
	Nancy Ayagarak, Kuskokwim, CRA (98)
	Jerah Chadwick, Devel. Studies, CRA (98)
	Richard Clausen, Math, CLA (98)
	John Creed, Chukchi, CRA (97)
	Cindy Hardy, TVC (98) (shared seat w/Weber)
	Ron Illingworth, Interior Campus, CRA (97)
	Rose Kairaiuak, RSS (97)
	Wanda Martin, Advising Center (97)
	Mark Oswood, Biology/Wildlife, CNS (98)
	Joe Mason, Northwest, CRA (98)
	Riki Sipe, CCC, CLA (97)
	Jane Weber, TVC (98) (shared seat w/Hardy)
	  Ex-Officio:	^Ruth Lister, TVC

Faculty Appeals & Oversight Committee
	Barbara Alexander, CLA (98)
	Diane Bischak, SOM (97)
	Dale Feist, CNS (97)
	Greg Goering, SOM (98)
	DeAnne Hallsten, CRA (97)
	Alan Jubenville, SALRM (97)
	Meriam Karlsson, SALRM (98)
	Ken Krieg, ACE (98)
	Jonah Lee, SOE (97)
	Joe Niebauer, SFOS (97)
	Olayinka Ogunsola, SME (98)
	Nag Rao, CLA (97)
	Richard Stolzberg, CNS (98)
	Mark Tumeo, SOE (98) 
	Wayne Vandre, ACE (97)
	Daniel Walsh, SME (97)
	Craig Wiese, SFOS (98)
	Barbara Wilson, CRA (98)

Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement 
	Ron Barry, CLA (98)
	Linda Curda, CRA (97)
	Wendy Ernst Croskrey, CLA (98)
	Barry Mortensen, CRA (97)
	^David Porter, Dean, SOM
	Channon Price, CNS (97)
	Raymond RaLonde, SFOS (97)
	Tom Robinson, SOM (98)
	Rich Seifert, ACE (97)

Graduate School Advisory Committee
	Susan M. Henrichs -FS appointee
	Mark Oswood - FS appointee
	David Smith -FS appointee
	Curt Scuberla - Graduate Student
	Peggy Shumaker -Provost appt.
	Stephan Sparrow -Provost appt
	John Zarling -Provost appt 
	  Ex-Officio: 	Joe Kan, Graduate Dean
				John Craven, Senate President-Elect

Legislative and Fiscal Affairs
	Michael Jenning, SOEd (98)
	Wendy Redman, SW Univ. Rel.
	Janice Reynolds, CLA (97)
	^Robert Trent, Dean, SME
	Charles Wade, CRA (97)
	James Walworth, SALRM (97)

Service Committee
	^Hollis Hall, Director, ACE
	Don Kramer, SFOS (98)
	Tara Maginnis, CLA (98)
	Kara Nance, CLA (98)
	Yinka Ogunsola, SME (98)
	Diane Ruess, CLA (98)
	Richard Seifert, ACE (97)
	Non-University:	Herb Smelcer, US BIA 
	Non-University:	Vacant

University-wide Promotion & Tenure Committee
	Larry Bennett, SOE (98); Deben Das, alt
	Brian Paust, SFOS (99), Dolly Garza, alt.
	Walter Benesch, CLA (99); Kes Woodward, alt.
	T. Harikumar (98), SOM; Kelley Pace, alt.
	Scott Huang, SME (97)
	M. Karlsson, SALRM (98); Stephen Dorfing alt.
	*John Keller, CNS (97), John Morack, alt
	William Parrett, CLA/SOEd (99); Dauna Browne, alt.
	Sheryl Stanek, ACE (99), Don Quarberg, alt.
	Joli Morgan, CRA (97), Ruiz Ann Rozell, alt.


Core Review
	Dan White, SOE / D. Hatzignatiou, SME (98)
	Jin Brown, Speech, CLA (98)
	Lillian Corti, English, CLA (97)
	Tara Maginnis, Humanities, CLA (98)
	Doug Schamel, CNS (98) 
	Basil Coutant, Math, CLA (98)
	Janice Reynolds, BSHS, CRA (97)
				Student, ASUAF
	  Ex-Officio:	^Gorden Hedahl, Dean, CLA
				Sue McHenry, RSS

MAY 13, 1996


The UAF Faculty Senate moves to empower the Administrative 
Committee to act on behalf of the Senate until the Senate resumes 
deliberations in the Fall of 1996 on all matters within its purview 
which may arise.  Senators will be kept informed of the 
Administrative Committee meetings and will be encouraged to 
attend and participate in these meetings.

	EFFECTIVE:	May 13, 1996

	RATIONALE:	This motion will allow the Administrative 
		Committee to act on behalf of the Senate so that 
		necessary work can be accomplished and will also allow 
		Senators their reights to participate in the governance 

MAY 13, 1996


				John Craven

	This regular meeting of the committee was divided into two 
parts; a visit to the media classroom within the library and a 
discussion about facilities enhancements for "smart" classrooms.  
Focus of the visit to the media classroom was a demonstration of 
internet access to courses, etc. in the lower 48, which also 
precipitated a discussion of the diversity of offering appearing on 
the internet, competition, etc.  The use of video on the internet 
presents a serious problem, as the available bandwidth is quickly 
consumed, bring everyone else to a standstill.  In other words, you 
can only push so much information through the system (like water 
through a pipe), and a few data hogs can bring the delivery system to 
a halt.  This has immediate impact on in-state distance delivery.  
Commercialization of the internet is also going to have an impact on 
the cost of use.  It seems to me that we too glibly acknowledge that 
we are being sucked into the great era of global communications, but 
are being ostrich-like about the fact that its new cost structure 
may have a large impact on us and we don't want to think about it.

	The second part of the meeting comprised a discussion about 
the "smart" classroom, which appears to mean a classroom with 
network/video connections AND access to all the audio-visual 
equipment I thought was standard for the past 15 plus years.  The 
cost estimates presented are for a number of small (~27), medium 
(~15) and large (~7) classrooms and for auditoriums (3).  It is from a 
subset of these rooms that the distance education courses would be 
conducted.  I sense a host of unresolved technical questions that can 
arise when blending the old methods of presentation (e.g., 35-mm 
slides, movies) with distant sites via the internet.  Demonstrations 
of feasibility must precede the expenditure of funds, none of which 
presently exist.

	As a follow-up to the meeting, the provost and I attended Kara 
Nance's computer class later in the day to witness distance delivery 
in action between Fairbanks and Anchorage.  I had no trouble 
envisioning how some classes could easily be taught using the 
facilities provided, but can also see how it would require significant 
compromises for some courses.  For example, the working space for 
graphic information is some fraction of a standard view graph (i.e., 
transparency), which the font size must be greatly increased to be 
readable.  We all know that a projection of this page on a screen 
would not be readable to most people.  It's much the same if 
projected by a TV system.  This could be a great hindrance to 
technical courses requiring a high density of material with repeated 
references to previously presented material.  Distance education can 
also be hindered by the use of rooms with lighting designs and other 
items now considered standard.

MAY 13, 1996


WHEREAS, The University of Alaska is dedicated to promoting an 
	environment of non-discrimination and fairness in which all 
	employees, staff and students are treated equally; and

WHEREAS, The establishment of domestic partnership benefits 
	programs has been used by top institutions and companies 
	around the country to attract and retain highly qualified 
	employees (over 450 companies and 100 institutions of higher 
	education, both public and private, including Princeton, 
	Harvard, the University of South Carolina, the University of 
	South Dakota, Stanford, and the University of Iowa, offer 
	similar domestic partnership programs); and 

WHEREAS, The University of Alaska, last September instituted a 
	Domestic Partnership benefits program that has not resulted 
	in economic or administrative impacts; and

WHEREAS, The cost of continuing the domestic partnership program 
	already in place is less than 0.05% of all the benefits costs 
	incurred by the University per year ($88,000 out of $18 
	million) and has increased the number of people insured by less 
	than 1%; and

WHEREAS, The current and continuing advantages of the domestic 
	partnership benefits program are the creation of a fairer and 
	less discriminatory workplace environment, and improved 
	morale among faculty and staff who feel more fairly treated 
	and valued; 

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Faculty Senate of the 
	University of Alaska Fairbanks requests that the Board of 
	Regents leave the existing domestic partnership benefits 
	program in place and take no action to remove or reduce 
	benefits provided to bona fide domestic partners, spouses and 
	legal dependents of UA employees.