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


				A G E N D A
		UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #69
			Monday, February 10, 1996
			    1:30 p.m. - 4:25 p.m.
			   Wood Center Ballroom

1:30	I	Call to Order - Don Lynch				  5 Min.
		A.	Roll Call
		B.	Approval of Minutes to Meeting #68
		C.	Adoption of Agenda

1:35	II	Status of Chancellor's Office Actions		 	  5 Min.
		A.	Motions Approved:
			1.	Motion to approve new programs
				in Health Technology.
			2.	Motion to approve new Certificate
				in Applied Business.
			3.	Motion on changes to the policies
				on "W", "I", and "NB".
		B.	Motions Pending:  none

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

2:00	IV	Guest Speaker - Ann Tremarello,				 10 Min.
			University Registrar

2:10	V	Governance Reports
	A.	ASUAF - C. Wheeler					  5 Min.
	B.	Staff Council - R. Pierce	 			  5 Min.
	C.	President's Report - D. Lynch 				  5 Min.
			(Attachment 69/1)
	D.	President-Elect¹s Report - J. Craven			  5 Min.
			(Attachment 69/2)
	E.	Report on Chancellor's Workshop (Handout)		 10 Min.
	F.	Report on the AAHE Conference 				 10 Min.

2:50	VI	Public Comments/Questions 				  5 Min.

2:55		*** BREAK ***   					 10 Min.

3:05	VII	New Business
	A.	Motion to amend the Transfer of Credit   		 5 Min.
		Policy,   submitted by Curricular Affairs 
		(Attachment 69/3) 
	B.	Motion on courses considered for CORE 			 5 Min.
		designation must include a plan for its 
		effectiveness evaluation, submitted by Core 
		Review (Attachment 69/4)
	C.	Motion to amend the Academic Review Cycle 		10 Min.
		to include a spring review, submitted by
		Graduate Curricular Affairs/Curriculum
		Review (Attachment 69/5)
	D.	Motion to amend the UAF Regulations for the 		 5 Min.
		Evaluation of Faculty to add a new paragraph, 
		submitted by University-wide Promotion &
		Tenure (Attachment 69/6)
	E.	Motion to amend Section 3 (ARTICLE V:   		10 Min.
		Committees) of the Bylaws, submitted by 
		Administrative Committee (Attachment 69/7) 
	F.	Motion to approve the 1997-98 Faculty 		 	 5 Min.
		Senate meeting calendar, submitted by 
		Administrative Committee (Attachment 69/8)	
	G.	Motion to reaffirm position of salary/			 5 Min.
		compensation locus of tenure, and  post-
		tenure review, submitted by Ad Hoc Committee 
		on Union/Governance Relations (Attachment 69/9)

3:45	VIII	Committee Reports 					30 Min.
	A.	Curricular Affairs - Maynard Perkins 
			(Attachment 69/10)
	B.	Faculty Affairs - Norm Swazo
	C.	Graduate Curricular Affairs - Mark Tumeo
	D.	Scholarly Activities - Ron Barry
	E.	CNCSHDR - Rudy Krejci
	F.	Developmental Studies - Ron Illingworth
	G.	Faculty Appeals & Oversight - Diane Bischak
	H.	Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement - 
			Rich Seifert
	I.	Graduate School Advisory Committee - Susan Hendricks
			(Attachment 69/11)
	J.	Legislative & Fiscal Affairs - Michael Jennings
	K.	Service Committee - Kara Nance
	L.	University-Wide Promotion/Tenure - John Keller 
	M.	Core Review Committee - Jin Brown 
			(Attachment 69/12)

4:15	IX	Discussion Items 					 5 Min.

4:20	X	Members' Comments/Questions				 5 Min.

4:25	XI	Adjournment


********************
ATTACHMENT 69/1
UAF FACULTY SENATE #69
FEBRUARY 10, 1997


REPORT TO THE UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 10TH, 
1997 - Pres. Donald F. Lynch, Ph.D.

Welcome to our Rural Sites Representatives.  We are grateful to see 
you in person as we all recognize your audio conference voices.

First and foremost I wish to thank all the committee chairs and 
members who have been working very hard on the Senate's business.  
Particularly I wish to thank three really overloaded committees: 
Curricular Affairs, Curriculum Review, and Core Review.  Something 
like 140 course changes have been processed, and Core Review is 
struggling with a means to evaluate the "effectiveness" of the core 
curriculum.  In addition, a new grading system, after much 
discussion, has been approved.

The Promotion and Tenure committee has done excellent work in 
evaluating candidates for tenure and promotion.  This is an arduous 
task which this committee is performing.

Your agenda contains United Academics response to your Resolution 
passed at the last meeting.  You will notice that the Executive Board 
of United Academics is very concerned about cooperating to the 
maximum degree possible with the UAF and other Faculty Senates.

I have already alerted you to the Provost's "Targets" for measuring 
improved effectiveness.  The Administrative Committee has 
requested that the Targets be widely distributed.

United Academics will be developing the first draft of the contract 
proposal the week of February 16 through 23rd.

John Craven has proposed several bylaw changes which you will be 
asked to consider.  I have proposed bylaw changes attempting to 
strength and more clearly define the roles and place of the 
Curricular Affairs, Curriculum Review, and Core Review committees.  
The Administrative Committee has requested that the chairs of 
these committees consider the proposals and develop their own 
ideas.

The Provost indicated at the Administrative Committee meeting that 
courses not given in the past five years may be continued in the 
catalogue at the request of the department affected.  Such courses 
should be submitted very quickly.

John Craven and I will be in Juneau February 12th through 14th 
attending the Regents' meeting and joining the other governance 
groups in supporting the University's budget request before the state 
legislature.  We hope this effort will be helpful.

I defer to the Registrar for accurate information, but my 
understanding is that the Banner Program is to be completed and 
running by the fall semester of 1997.  This will include the faculty 
workload module which will be based on the workload statements 
each faculty member submits.  I encourage everyone to take these 
statements seriously particularly regarding research and public 
service, elements not yet included in the module.

We have not yet received official explanation and justification from 
Statewide for the new general harassment policy.  I have sent an E 
Mail message to the Regents protesting Statewide's action in failing 
to consult governance on a major policy matter potentially affecting 
all of us.  My personal belief is that the proposed policy is "fatally 
flawed", as the phrase goes and may lead to endless litigation.

There is another policy document which we recently obtained 
developed by a committee chaired by Dean Carla Kirts which 
contains a paragraph regarding faculty functions.  We have not been 
officially informed of this document's existence either, and so 
governance here is also being ignored.

Kara Nance and I represented the Senate at the "Sour Grapes Ball," 
which was a very relaxing and entertaining evening.  Those who 
worked so hard to put this event on, including Brenda Wilcox, Janel 
Thompson, Enid Cutler, "Issac" and the UAF "mascot" are to be 
complimented.

Approximately forty faculty are retiring this year.  Departments 
need, therefore, to take recommendations on Emeritus Status and 
Affiliate Professorships quite seriously.

Tara Maginnis and John Craven represented the Senate at the 
Chancellor's workshops.  The bad news is a potential multi-million 
dollar deficit.  The good news is that our administrative procedures 
are becoming more and more "student friendly."

Through usually reliable sources, I understand that the benefits 
package we all enjoy is to be significantly modified by the 
University.  We have received no accurate information on this 
subject, but the unofficial information is quite disconcerting.  The 
rumour mill, active as always, also reports that the President has 
sequestered all early retirement positions.  As usual, more open 
communication from Statewide would make the governance task 
much easier.

As a final piece of advice from an Old Timer, two days after the 
state Legislature meets, the University administration panics, and 
that panic permeates downward and makes faculty and staff 
depressed.  Don't let it get to you: remember March 17th instead!


********************
ATTACHMENT 69/2
UAF FACULTY SENATE #69
FEBRUARY 10, 1997


Report by John Craven,  President Elect and Chair of the 
Administrative Committee


1.  Faculty Alliance proposal for a Faculty Development Institute.  A 
subcommittee of the Faculty Alliance has written and submitted to 
the President Komisar a proposal for the creation of a UA Faculty 
Development Institute to be initially funded from the Natural 
Resources Fund.  The proposal was discussed at the joint meeting of 
the Alliance and the Systemwide Academic Council on January 24, 
1997, where certain changes were requested by members of the SAC.  
Most important was the requirement for an immediate effort to 
secure external funds on a cost-sharing basis to support the 
institute, where it is expected that yearly operating costs after the 
first year will be of the order of $250,000.  It is expected that 
$16,000 will be provided quickly from the NRF for initial planning 
purposes, but not for a summer 1997 session.  Quoting directly from 
the original proposal,

"The objective of this proposal is to establish and fund a multi-year 
Faculty Development Program as an integral part of the university's 
academic endeavors in accordance with Board of Regents' priorities.  
These priorities include enhancing access to programs and services 
of high quality, maintaining currency in the technological 
infrastructure for delivery of instruction, providing opportunities 
for faculty development in appropriate pedagogies, and developing 
and implementing successful applications for external funding.

The purpose of the Faculty Development Program is to plan and 
implement faculty development that addresses pedagogy, teaching 
methods and educational technologies.  In order to accomplish this, 
the Faculty Alliance recommends the establishment of a Faculty 
Development Steering Committee to:

A.  design, coordinate, conduct and evaluate a Systemwide faculty 
development institute, identify faculty to conduct courses, and 
prepare funding proposals for future years;

B.  identify policies and/or procedures for preparing and delivering 
courses using new and emerging technologies;

C.  develop elements to be included in guidelines for meeting faculty 
development needs that are not being met within the University of 
Alaska; and

D.  explore partnerships with K-12 for faculty development in 
accordance with Board of Regents/Department of Education joint 
resolutions."

Complete copies of the revised proposal can be obtained from the 
UAF Governance office or from Pat Ivey in the Systemwide 
Governance office.


********************
ATTACHMENT 69/3
UAF FACULTY SENATE #69
FEBRUARY 10, 1997
SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS


MOTION
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the Transfer of Credit 
Policy as listed in the UAF 1996-97 catalog, page 11 as follows:


((   ))  = 	Deletions
CAPS  = 	Additions


Transfer of Credit

	3.	COLLEGE LEVEL ACADEMIC CREDITS EARNED BY A STUDENT 
AT ANY MAU WITHIN THE UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA WILL BE 
TRANSFERRED TO UAF, SUBJECT TO APPLICABILITY TOWARD DEGREE 
REQUIREMENTS AND MEASURES OF ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE AS 
DELINEATED BY THE APPROPRIATE COLLEGE AND DEPARTMENT.  
Undergraduate credits earned at the 100-level or above with a grade 
of "C" or higher at institutions outside of the UA system, and 
accredited by one of the six regional accrediting agencies, will be 
considered for transfer.  Transfer credit normally isn't granted for 
courses with doctrinal religious content or for graduate courses (for 
undergraduate programs).  ((Credit is not transferred for advanced 
placement credit or credit by examination awarded by another 
institution.))
   
	EFFECTIVE: 	FALL 1997

	RATIONALE: 	This means that a UA transfer student would 
		be able to transfer to UAF any UA course having a  grade 
		of "D" or better; and that course would transfer to a 
		College or Department as long as there was not 
		conflicting College or Department criteria.


		This change brings UAF in accord with Regents' Policy 
		and University Regulation:


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

P10.04.06 A.3.

3. A student who has completed some of the general education 
requirements at one University of Alaska university or community 
college will have those credits count toward fulfillment of the same 
categories of general education requirements outlined in the 
common core at all University of Alaska universities and community 
colleges.  This applies even if there is no directly matching 
coursework at the institution to which the student transfers.  This 
statement will be published in each university and community 
college catalog.


R10.04.06

Transfer of Credit


In accepting credits from accredited colleges and universities, 
maximum recognition of courses satisfactorily completed will be 
granted to transfer students toward satisfying requirements at the 
receiving institution.  Coursework must be at the 100 level or above 
to transfer and, from institutions outside the University of Alaska, 
must be completed with a grade of C or better.  A student's entire 
transcript from any MAU within the University of Alaska will be 
transferred to another MAU, subject to applicability toward degree 
requirements and measures of academic performance as established 
elsewhere in Regents' Policy, University regulation, and the rules 
and procedures of the MAU from which the student is to receive a 
degree or certificate.


********************
ATTACHMENT 69/4
UAF FACULTY SENATE #69
FEBRUARY 10, 1997
SUBMITTED BY CORE REVIEW


MOTION
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve the Core Review 
Committee recommendation that any course proffered for 
consideration of CORE designation must include, in it description, a 
careful and complete plan for its effectiveness evaluation.  Plans 
for effectiveness evaluation should be consonant with effectiveness 
evaluation plans for other courses which fulfill the same CORE 
requirement.  

Departments offering courses for CORE designation during the period 
in which effectiveness evaluation plans are being initiated, and 
which are accepted for CORE designation by the Core Review 
Committee, will join with the other departments offering that CORE 
option in planning effectiveness evaluation.

This motion does not include courses submitted for "W" or "O" 
designation.

	EFFECTIVE: 	Fall 1997

	RATIONALE: 	The Core Review Committee is charged with 
		determining which courses shall be included in the CORE 
		curriculum, and has been appointed oversight of the 
		Educational Effectiveness Evaluation of the CORE 
		Curriculum  

		The Core Review Committee believes that the 
		Effectiveness Evaluation process will become a 
		permanent aspect of the committee¹s responsibility and 
		in regard to the future, do not want subsequent Core 
		Review Committees to have to reinvent the wheel.  The 
		committee feels that the faculty SHOULD begin to 
		perceive both the CORE and their participation in the 
		CORE in regard to the Effectiveness Evaluation process; 
		to share, if you will, the commitment to Evaluation to 
		which the University is committed.


********************
ATTACHMENT 69/5
UAF FACULTY SENATE #69
FEBRUARY 10, 1997
SUBMITTED BY GRADUATE CURRICULAR AFFAIRS/CURRICULUM REVIEW


MOTION
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the Policy on Approval of 
Academic Changes to include a spring review cycle deadline in 
March.  The spring review cycle will include academic and course 
changes that do not require UAF Faculty Senate and Board of Regents 
approval.  Changes in the spring review cycle will be approved 
effective the following Fall, however, they may not be included in 
the course catalog.

	EFFECTIVE: 	Immediately
			Upon Approval of the Chancellor

	RATIONALE:	Once a year in the fall the Graduate 
		Curricular Affairs Committee and the Curriculum Review 
		Committees review numerous requests for course 
		changes.  Currently, this is the only opportunity for 
		programs to enact changes in their degree program, add, 
		drop or modify courses.  The current deadline requires all 
		suggestions to be drawn up and submitted relatively 
		early in the academic year.  This may not be sufficient 
		time for faculty to complete the required paperwork and 
		to sufficiently consider all the potential ramifications 
		of a change.  In addition, new faculty are often at a 
		severe disadvantage if they wish to introduce a new 
		course.  Currently, if the fall deadline is missed, the 
		action must wait an entire academic year before being 
		considered, thereby delaying any changes for almost two 
		years from the time the idea originated.  

		By adding an additional review cycle in the spring, 
		programs will be able to react more efficiently to 
		changes, address administrative concerns more 
		completely, and have an opportunity to optimize their 
		program in a less hectic manner.


********************
ATTACHMENT 69/6
UAF FACULTY SENATE #69
FEBRUARY 10, 1997
SUBMITTED BY UNIVERSITY-WIDE PROMOTION & TENURE


MOTION
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the UAF Regulations for the 
Evaluation of Faculty:  Initial Appointment, Annual Review, 
Reappointment, Promotion, Tenure, and Sabbatical Leave, Article 
IV.B.2. with the additional of a fifth paragraph.


IV. CONSIDERATION OF FACULTY FOR PROMOTION AND TENURE

B. Faculty with Academic Rank

2. (add paragraph 5)

ACCESS TO THE CANDIDATES¹ FILE WILL BE LIMITED TO THE 
CANDIDATE, AND, DURING THE OFFICIAL REVIEW PERIODS 
ESTABLISHED BY THE PROVOST, THE APPROPRIATE PERSONNEL AT 
EACH REVIEW LEVEL (DEPARTMENT HEAD, PEER COMMITTEE, DEAN 
AND/OR DIRECTOR, UNIVERSITY-WIDE PROMOTION AND TENURE 
COMMITTEE, PROVOST, AND CHANCELLOR). 


	EFFECTIVE: 	Immediately
			Upon Chancellor Approval

	RATIONALE: 	This paragraph makes explicit current policy 
		in most of the University.  Currently there is no 
		statement of this policy in UAF Regulations, which has 
		led to some confusion regarding this issue.  On the other 
		hand, if the file is not a confidential dossier, then 
		perhaps is it a public document?  In any case, access
		to these files should be well defined in University 
		Regulations.  The large majority of the University-wide 
		Promotion and Tenure Committee (by a 9 to 1 vote) 
		agreed with the above confidentiality policy.


********************
ATTACHMENT 69/7
UAF FACULTY SENATE #69
FEBRUARY 10, 1997
SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE


MOTION
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend Section 3 (ARTICLE V:  
Committees) of the Bylaws as follows:

((   )) 	=  Deletion
CAPS 	=  Addition


A.	An Administrative Committee will be composed of the 
chairpersons of all standing SENATE COMMITTEES and OF ALL 
permanent Senate Committees EXCEPT THE UNIVERSITY-WIDE 
PROMOTION AND TENURE COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE TO 
NOMINATE COMMENCEMENT SPEAKER AND HONORARY DEGREE 
RECIPIENTS.

B.	Membership on standing and permanent committees will be for 
two years EXCEPT AS NOTED BELOW with the possibility of RE-
APPOINTMENT ((reelection and will be appointed by the 
Administrative Committee)).  THE INITIAL APPOINTMENT OR RE-
APPOINTMENT IS MADE BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OR AS 
SPECIFIED IN THE DEFINITION OF A PERMANENT COMMITTEE and 
((endorsed)) CONFIRMED by the full Senate.  Senators are limited to 
serving on a maximum of one standing committee at any one time.  
TO PROVIDE CONTINUITY, TERMS WILL BE STAGGERED AND AN INITIAL 
APPOINTMENT MAY BE MADE FOR ONE OR TWO YEARS AS DETERMINED 
BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE BASED ON NEED.

C.	Standing committees will be constituted entirely of Senate 
members.  Permanent committees can be constituted without Senate 
members.  

D. 	All permanent and standing committee chairs will be elected 
from and by the members of their respective committee and must be 
full-time faculty at UAF.

E. 	The standing and permanent committees of the Senate are:


	STANDING

	1. 	The Curricular Affairs Committee will deal with 
		curricular and academic policy changes on all levels 
		except the graduate level.

	2.	((The Scholarly Activities Committee will deal with 
		policies concerning research and creative activity.))

	((3.)) 	The Faculty AND SCHOLARLY Affairs Committee will deal 
		with policies related to workload, appointment, 
		termination, promotion, tenure, sabbatical leave, ((and))
		academic freedom, RESEARCH AND CREATIVE ACTIVITY.  

	3((4)).  The Graduate Curricular Affairs Committee will
		include five members and will be responsible for the 
		review and approval of graduate courses, curriculum and 
		graduate degree requirements, and other academic 
		matters related to instruction and mentoring of graduate 
		students.  The Dean of the Graduate school, and the 
		Directors of the Library, and Admissions and Records and 
		one graduate student, are non-voting ex-officio members.

	PERMANENT

	1. 	The University-Wide Promotion and Tenure Committee 
		will be one member from each school and college. 
		TERMS OF SERVICE ON THE COMMITTEE WILL BE THREE 
		YEARS, WITH THE TERMS BEING STAGGERED SO THAT 
		CONTINUITY BETWEEN COMMITTEES IS MAINTAINED.  
		Members of this committee must hold tenured senior 
		level appointment at UAF. This committee will review 
		candidate files for promotion and/or tenure and will 
		recommend for or against the promotion and/or tenure of 
		each candidate who presents a file for consideration by 
		the committee.

	2. 	The Service Committee will be 7 members who represent 
		the academic community and the general public, with not 
		less than two members being non-university employees. 
		The chair must be a faculty member.  ((Members' terms 
		will be staggered to provide continuity.)) This committee 
		will deal with policies relating to the service mission of 
		the university and its faculty.

	3.  	The Graduate School Advisory Committee will include 
		three full-time faculty members appointed by the Senate 
		President, three full-time faculty members appointed by 
		the Provost, and one graduate student selected by the 
		Provost from nominations submitted by the graduate 
		faculty and student senate.  The graduate student must 
		have completed a minimum of one  full year of 
		attendance at UAF.  Each department with a graduate 
		program is limited to no more than one member.  The 
		Dean of the Graduate School and the President of the 
		Faculty Senate are ex-officio non-voting members.  The 
		Dean of the Graduate School will convene regular 
		meetings, and must convene additional meetings if 
		requested by two members of the committee.  The 
		committee will advise the Dean of the Graduate School 
		and the Provost on administrative matters pertinent to 
		the operation and growth of graduate studies at UAF, 
		including financial and tax-related issues and dealings 
		with other universities.  All recommendations regarding 
		curricular matters will go to the Graduate Curricular 
		Affairs Committee and the Faculty Senate for approval.

	4. 	The Developmental Studies Committee will include one 
		representative from each of the following units:  
		Northwest Campus, Chukchi Campus, Kuskokwim Campus, 
		Bristol Bay Campus, Interior-Aleutians Campus; the 
		((College of Natural Sciences)) SCIENCES, MATHEMATICS, 
		((the)) English, ((Mathematical Sciences)), STUDENT 
		SUPPORT SERVICES PROGRAM, and 	Cross Cultural 
		Communications ((Departments)), the Developmental 
		Studies Division of the College of Rural 	Alaska, Rural 
		Student Services, and the Advising Center; and two 
		representatives from the Tanana Valley Campus.  

		The Developmental Studies Committee shall consider 
		policies concerning developmental education:  programs, 
		courses, instructional development, evaluation, and 
		assessment.  This committee will function as a 
		curriculum council review committee for all 
		developmental studies courses.  Discipline based 
		developmental courses will be reviewed by the 
		appropriate college curriculum council before submission 
		to this committee for review and coordination.

	5. 	The Faculty Development, Assessment and Improvement 
		Committee will be composed of faculty members and the 
		Director of Faculty Development.  This committee will 
		deal with faculty and instructional development and 
		evaluation.

	6. 	The Committee to Nominate Commencement Speaker and 
		Honorary Degree Recipients will nominate 
		commencement speakers and candidates for honorary 
		degrees.

	7. 	The Legislative and Fiscal Affairs Committee will follow 
		legislative and fiscal issues which may impact faculty 
		concerns at the university and will act as a faculty 
		advocate with legislators and candidates.

	8.	The Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee shall be 
		composed of two tenured faculty members, elected  from 
		each college/school and confirmed by the Faculty Senate.  
		((who shall serve for a two year term.  Members' terms 
		will be staggered to provide continuity.)) This committee 
		will function as an appeal body for issues of faculty 
		prerogative, oversee evaluation of academic 
		administrators, and make recommendations to the 
		Provost or Chancellor.

		Committee members shall constitute a hearing panel pool 
		to serve as needed on grievance hearing panels. 

		A promotion/tenure appeals subcommittee composed of 
		five tenured faculty will hear all promotion and/or 
		tenure reconsideration requests and report its findings 
		to the Chancellor according to University of Alaska 
		Fairbanks Regulations, Section IV,B,4. 


F. 	Any standing or permanent committee may create 
subcommittees to assist the committee.

G. 	The Senate President may create and appoint the members of 
any ad hoc committee necessary for conducting Senate business.  Ad 
hoc committees are subject to later ratification by the Senate.

H. 	Committees must forward any legislation which involves the 
setting or altering of policy to the full Senate for approval.  
Committees which are specifically charged with applying policy to 
make decisions may do so without having the Senate approve those 
decisions.  A review by the full Senate may be requested by the 
reviewing Senate committee. A request to the Senate Administrative 
Committee for a further Senate review may also be submitted by 
individual Senators if the question has policy implications.  THE 
COMMITTEE CHAIR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PRESENTATION OF THE 
COMMITTEE¹S MOTION TO THE SENATE AT THE MEETING IN WHICH IT 
WILL BE CONSIDERED.  

	EFFECTIVE: 	Immediately
			Upon Chancellor¹s Approval

	RATIONALE:	
		A.	The work of the University-wide Promotion and 
		Tenure Committee and the Committee to Nominate 
		Commencement Speakers and Honorary Degree Recipients 
		is more seasonal than routine and the work is done 
		largely in executive session for which there can be no 
		public report.  Hence the chairs are much less involved in 
		the routine work of the Senate.

		B.	These changes apply the length and staggering of 
		appointments uniformly to all committees and provide 
		the mechanism for creating staggered committee 
		appointments.  

		E.  STANDING, 2 & 3	Scholarly Affairs has done nothing 
		for three years, yet its reason for being may have some 
		importance.  By combining the two committees, such 
		matters as may perhaps come up in the future which 
		would normally be considered by Scholarly Affairs could 
		be handled by the combined Faculty and Scholarly 
		Affairs.

		E.  PERMANENT, 4.	Changes in the college structure 
		and realignment of departments delivering developmental 
		courses require the name changes and the inclusion of 
		another program.

		H.	It is difficult to proceed with a proper discussion 
		of a motion submitted to the Senate if the committee 
		chair is not there to provide information on the 
		committee¹s deliberation.


********************
ATTACHMENT 69/8
UAF FACULTY SENATE #69
FEBRUARY 10, 1997
SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE


				UAF FACULTY SENATE

					1997-98
				Calendar of Meetings

Mtg. #  Date  	Day    	Time 		Type  		Location

73	9/15/97	Monday	1:30 p.m	audioconference	WC Ballroom

74	10/13/97Monday	1:30 p.m	face-to-face	WC Ballroom

75	11/10/97Monday	1:30 p.m	audioconference	WC Ballroom

76	12/8/97	Monday	1:30 p.m	face-to-face	WC Ballroom

77	2/9/98	Monday	1:30 p.m	face-to-face	WC Ballroom

78	3/9/98	Monday	1:30 p.m	audioconference	WC Ballroom

79	4/6/98	Monday	1:30 p.m	face-to-face	WC Ballroom

80	5/4/98	Monday	1:30 p.m	audioconference	WC Ballroom


FALL:  
Orientation for New Students - Sunday-Wednesday, August 30-
	September 3, 1997
Labor Day - Monday, September 1, 1997
Registration/Course Selection - Tuesday-Wednesday, September 2-
	3, 1997
First Day of Instruction - Thursday, September 4, 1997
Thanksgiving  Holiday- Thursday-Friday, November 27-28, 1997
Last Day of Instruction - Friday, December 12, 1997
Final Examinations - Monday-Thursday, December 15-18, 1997
Winter Closure - December 25, 1997-January 4, 1998

SPRING:  
Orientation for New Students - Monday-Tuesday, January 12-13, 
	1998
Registration/Course Selection - Tuesday-Wednesday, January 13-14, 
	1998
First Day of Class - Thursday, January 15, 1998
Alaska Civil Rights Day (no classes) - Monday, January 19, 1998
Spring Break - Monday-Sunday, March 16-22, 1998
Last Day of Instruction - Friday, May 1, 1998
Final Examinations - Monday-Thursday, May 4-7, 1998


********************
ATTACHMENT 69/9
UAF FACULTY SENATE #69
FEBRUARY 10, 1997
SUBMITTED BY AD HOC COMMITTEE ON UNION/GOVERNANCE RELATIONS

MOTION
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to RE-AFFIRM its position on salary/ 
compensation, locus of tenure, and post-tenure review as expressed 
in the following motions passed at UAF Senate meetings #56 and 
#63 with the further understanding that the position on post-tenure 
review articulates the preliminaries of a formative, rather than a 
summative, policy which is to be linked to faculty development.  

In so moving, the UAF Faculty Senate directs that these policy 
statements be transmitted to the appropriate committees of United 
Academics currently working on the contract proposal to be 
negotiated with the University of Alaska administration, the intent 
of this transmittal being that these Senate policy statements be 
incorporated in the contract proposal.

	EFFECTIVE:   	Immediately

	RATIONALE:   	The motion is presented in the spirit of 
		solidarity and cooperation with United Academics 
		concerning mandatory items of collective bargaining.  
		United Academics committees are currently working on 
		contract language and stand to benefit from the work of 
		the UAF Faculty Senate insofar as it has spoken to these 
		specific mandatory items of collective bargaining.  The 
		motion, furthermore, directly responds to Lawrence 
		Weiss¹ memo to D. Lynch and P. Slattery of 2/2/97 
		inviting ³substantial contribution to the contract 
		proposal.²  Moreover, the UAF Faculty Senate reserves 
		it right to pronounce on policy recommendations 
		pertinent to faculty affairs, this consistent with AAUP's 
		"Statement on Academic Government for Institutions 
		Engaged in Collective Bargaining", in particular that 
		"Collective bargaining should not replace, but rather 
		should ensure, effective traditional forms of shared 
		governance...Collective bargaining should ensure 
		institutional policies and procedures that provide 
		access for all faculty to participation in shared 
		governance. Employed in this way, collective bargaining 
		complements and supports structures of shared 
		governance consistent with the "Statement on 
		Government."


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

United Academics-AAUP/AFT

Lawrence D. Weiss, President
c/o UAA Department of Sociology
3211 Providence Dr.
Anchorage, AK  99508
office: (907)789-4671 E-mall:  AFLDW@UAA.Alaska.edu

MEMO

2/2/97

TO:		Donald F. Lynch, President, UAF Faculty Senate 
		Phil Slattery, President, Faculty Alliance

FROM:		Lawrence D. Weiss, President, united Academics

SUBJECT:	Faculty Governance

I am pleased to report to you that at the recent December 19th 
meeting of the United Academics Executive Board the commitment to 
"sustain and enhance governance at the University of Alaska," as 
stated in the United Academics Constitution, was reaffirmed.  The 
Executive Board charged the three Organizational Vice Presidents to 
coordinate with the faculty governance bodies (although there is 
some concern about the present status of faculty governance at 
UAS).

Prof. Norm Swazo, Chair, UAF Faculty Senate Standing Committee on 
Faculty Affairs, has been appointed as a member of the negotiating 
pool from which the negotiating team will be selected.  In this 
capacity Prof. Swazo enjoys maximum communication with the 
Executive Board.  In addition the Board invites the UAF Faculty 
Affairs committee to make a substantial contribution to the 
contract proposal.

Our intention as members of the Executive Board is to keep faculty 
governance as fully informed as possible regarding the development 
of a contract proposal.  The current schedule Is to have a draft of the 
full contract proposal widely disseminated the week of February 24 
along with public forums for maximum faculty input before we go to 
the table early March.  Meanwhile, seven state-wide committees are 
hard at work putting together a first draft.  For more information 
about the committees contact John French, Executive Vice President; 
Don Lynch, your Organizational Vice President; or me.

I look forward to seeing you at our next Executive Board meeting 
Sunday February 16, 9-4, at the APEA offices, 825 College Road 
(452-2106).  In addition I will be on your campus all day Monday the 
17th.  I would be most pleased to meet with any interested group or 
individual from early In the morning until mid-evening.  Please call 
or E-mail me (contact information on letterhead) so we can make 
arrangements. 


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

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its meeting #56 on 
March 20, 1995.


The UAF Faculty Senate endorses the following Pay Raise Proposal 
and formula. 

				 PAY RAISE PROPOSAL

STEPS IN RANK	1	2	3	4	5	6	
YRS IN RANK	1,2	3,4	5,6	7,8	9,10	11,12

FORMULA
ASSISTANT 	1.00	1.04	1.08	1.12
ASSOCIATE 	1.20	1.24	1.30	1,35	1.38	1.40
FULL			1.40	1.46	1.51	1.57	1.64	1.70

1.	These step increases are to reflect increased faculty 
	experience and are in addition to regular cost-of-living 
	increases as provided by the Board of Regents.

2.	Assistant Professors shall receive a 4% longevity increase for 
	each step corresponding to every two years of university 
	service (assuming a satisfactory or better evaluation.)

3.	Upon promotion to Associate Professor, the faculty members 
	will receive a salary of 20% higher than the base starting 
	Assistant Professor salary.

4.	Upon promotion to full professor, the faculty member will 
	receive a base salary of 40% higher than the base starting 
	Assistant Professor salary.

5	Associate Professors must be promoted to full Professor by 
	their 12th year as Associate Professors or forego additional 
	step increases.

6.	Full Professors receive a 2% step increase after their 12th 
	year at rank as full Professors.

7.	All steps refer to appropriate, discipline based starting 
	salaries.


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

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #63 
on April 22, 1996:


MOTION PASSED (1 nay)
==============

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 0X-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 too 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 formal 
		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).


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

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #63 on 
April 22, 1996:


MOTION PASSED (unanimous)
==============

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 DEAN) 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 process 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 higher education.


********************
ATTACHMENT 69/10
UAF FACULTY SENATE #69
FEBRUARY 10, 1997
SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS


Minutes of Curricular Affairs Meeting, January 20, 1997

Meeting Chaired by Maynard Perkins
Minutes by Carol Barnhardt
Submitted by Maynard Perkins, Chair of Curricular Affairs

Attending: Sukumar Bandopadhyay, Carol Barnhardt, Gayle Gregory, 
Jerry McBeath, Terry McFadden, Maynard Perkins, Paul Reichardt, 
Madeline Schatz, Ann Tremarello, Jane Weber  (Don Lynch for last 
part of meeting)

AGENDA ITEMS

1.  MEETING TIMES
The meeting time for Spring Semester will continue to be 2:00 to 
3:15 on Mondays.  The next meeting will be on the 17th of February.


2.  BYLAW CHANGE REGARDING CURRICULUM REVIEW COMMITTEE AND 
CORE REVIEW COMMITTEE

DISCUSSION:  A recommendation to add the Curriculum Review 
Committee and the Core Review Committee as subcommittees of 
Curricular Affairs is being discussed by several of the committees 
involved.  Jerry McBeath indicated that a memo had been sent from 
Curriculum Review to Don Lynch stating no objections to being a 
subcommittee.

ACTION:  Maynard Perkins will report to the Administrative 
Committee that there is no direction on this recommendation from 
Curricular Affairs.


3.  RESIDENCY CREDITS AS EFFECTED BY DISTANCE DELIVERY COURSES

DISCUSSION:  On December 6, 1996, Curricular Affairs began a 
discussion about issues involved in using distance delivered 
courses/credits as residency credits. The discussion was initiated 
in an effort to gather information to allow Curricular Affairs to 
eventually develop an appropriate motion regarding this issue.

Discussion on January 20th provided additional background 
information on the multiple questions that will need to be answered 
before Curricular Affairs can develop an informed motion. Curricular 
Affairs will send a memo to all deans and departments with a 
request for feedback on this issue. Discussion of the draft memo and 
of the policy issues involved with "counting" distance delivered 
courses focused on the following:

-- The memo to deans and departments will need to include 
information about the current offerings through UALC (i.e. printed 
info, web page info, E-Mail, people to contact);

--It is important that UALC maintain a current Web page regarding 
course options;

--Decisions about how to display UALC courses on BANNER need to be 
discussed (e.g. which MAU will receive credit? which department 
will receive credit? do credits "follow" the instructor of the 
course? should BANNER have more indicators that "U" for UALC 
courses-ones that would also designate the MAU? do individual 
departments currently know which of their courses are available 
through UALC?).

ACTION:  Maynard will provide Sheri with a memo to distribute to all 
deans and departments on all UAF campuses (copy of draft memo 
attached). In addition to requesting feedback through the memo, all 
Curricular Affairs members are asked to gather information from 
their own units. Maynard will query colleagues from UAA and UAS at 
the UALC meeting in February.


4.  TRANSFER OF CREDIT WITHIN THE UA SYSTEM AS APPLIED TO 
GRADE OF D.

DISCUSSION:  Following discussion of issue at December 6th 
meeting, a motion to bring UAF into compliance with Regents Policy 
was reviewed.

ACTION:  The motion, as amended, was passed unanimously.  (See 
agenda attachment 69/3.)


5. MOTIONS CONCERNING THE TRANSFER OF CORE

DISCUSSION:  Several questions-in regard to the draft motions as 
described below-were discussed:
   a. Any transfer, or former UAF, student who has completed a 
bachelor's degree from an accredited institution will be considered 
to have completed the equivalent of the baccalaureate core when 
officially accepted to another undergraduate degree program at UAF.
   b.  Any transfer student who has completed the transfer Associate 
in Arts and Sciences, or Associate of Arts degree from one of the 
Washington community colleges listed on the attached  pages, will 
be considered to have completed the lower division requirements of 
the baccalaureate core.  Ann Tremarello has additional information 
on this.

Questions/concerns from Committee members:
--What are the implications of accepting students who do not have 
math, science, communication and library skills requirements 
comparable to those in the UAF CORE?
--Rationale for accepting as core, credits from AA degree students 
from Washington institutions, but not AA credits from students who 
completed AA degrees previously in UA institutions?
--Need to get complete copies of information on this issue 
(particularly Part B) to more people and especially to math and 
science departments

ACTION:  Ann will prepare a motion on this issue and send it to Jin 
Brown (with a copy to Maynard).  She will bring Jin's concerns back 
to Curricular Affairs by February 17th.


6.  DISCUSSION OF PETITION PROCESS
This request evolved from the December Faculty Senate meeting 
following the discussion of the request to implement a special 
petition process for student with disabilities.

DISCUSSION:  The issues, and recommendations for solutions, need to 
focus on the petition process for all students, not just those with 
disabilities.  Issues discussed included:
--Memo from Cliff Lando
--Questions about who is considered to have the "expertise" to 
review petitions - and at what point in the petition process does the 
department/discipline representative become involved in the 
decision (especially in CORE course petitions)
--Big questions in the whole petition process: who see what and 
when?

ACTION:  Maynard will set up an ad hoc committee and it will report 
back to Curricular Affairs. Names suggested so far include Pat 
Lambert (Math) and Diane Preston (Students with Disabilities).


7.  SECOND REVIEW CYCLE FOR COURSE SUBMITTALS

DISCUSSION:  The following information regarding a possible 2nd 
review cycle for course submittals was discussed.

Currently UAF has a deadline of January 17, 1997 for New Trial 
Courses for Fall 1997.  These are put out for the 10-day review and 
approval usually completed by mid-February.  Another idea would be 
the end of January or first of February so that all approvals can be 
completed six week prior to the Priority Registration (usually the 
first week of April).  The Provost is asking for action on this.  Last 
year's figures on the number of course requests was reviewed but 
Ann indicated that these were not completely representative.

Undergraduate Requests
2/20/96         5
4/12/96         6

Graduate Requests
2/20/96         2
3/11/96         1
4/22/96         2
7/19/96         1

Core Requests
2/20/96         2
4/12/96         4

All other requests came in between September and the Nov. 5 
deadline. Currently there is 1 New course, 1 changed course, 1 drop 
course, and 1 Oral Intensive Designator request which will be 
reviewed with any trial requests at the end of January.

Concerns expressed by Committee members:
--Does this matter need to come to this committee or is it an 
administrative decision?
--Jerry indicated that Curriculum Review will be meeting to take 
care of all Spring Semester business
--Ann said that all changes need to be put in a publication 
somewhere and her concern is that the changes be made early enough 
to get into the catalog and/or the fall course schedule before pre-
registration (there might be only one schedule published this year in 
April--not a second one published in August as has been done 
previously).
--The Provost wants a second period of course changes and 
submissions and even though these might not be done in time to 
place in the catalog, the work would at least be done.
--Concern with too much confusion already for students and we don't 
want to end up with a big supplement to the catalog.
--Second semester changes could be for "house cleaning items" only.
--Second semester changes for course changes only, not for program 
changes.

ACTION:  Maynard will put together a committee and he asked Jerry 
McBeath to coordinate it because of the work Jerry is currently 
doing with the Curriculum Review Committee.  The committee with 
put together a recommended time line.  Jerry will get this back to 
Curricular Affairs.


8.  CORE COURSES AND EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATION AND CORE 
COURSES AND PETITION PROCESS

DISCUSSION:  Curricular Affairs needs more information on the two 
motions.

ACTION:  Maynard will try to get addition information on the first 
motion and the second motion will be sent to the newly-established 
Ad Hoc Committee that will review the whole petition process.


9.  CATALOG DELETIONS

DISCUSSION:  Discussion of the Catalog deletions is on the agenda 
for the next Administrative Committee meeting. Curricular Affairs 
can choose to respond or act on this if appropriate (see memos from 
Jerry McBeath and Jack Keating for additional information on the 
issues involved).  Concerns expressed by Committee members:
--This is definitely a curricular issue.
--Questions about the reasons for dropping courses from the Catalog 
if they are still valid-what are the differences between listing a 
course and dropping a course?
--We need a better process for reviewing courses on a regular 
basis-one in which departments would be involved (and we need to 
develop policies on deleting courses if they are not offered for a 
certain number of years).
--The catalog should more accurately reflect the courses that are 
offered.
--The reasons for dropping may be valid but they should have been 
brought to the Senate since it is an academic action.
--There are two issues involved here: the action itself and the 
process.

ACTION:  There was no motion from Curricular Affairs at this time.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:15.


********************
ATTACHMENT 69/11
UAF FACULTY SENATE #69
FEBRUARY 10, 1997
SUBMITTED BY GRADUATE SCHOOL ADVISORY COMMITTEE


Graduate School Advisory Committee - S. Hendricks, Chair

January 29, 1997 Minutes

The Graduate School Advisory Committee met Wed., Jan 29, 1997, 
from 1:00-2:15 in the Kayak Room.  Present:  David Smith, John 
Craven, Joe Kan, Susan Henrichs, Steve Sparrow, Curt Szuberla, Mark 
Oswood, Peggy Shumaker

Excused:  John Zarling

l.  GSAC set meeting times of 1:00-2:00 on Fridays for spring 
semester.  GSAC elected Susan Henrichs chair for spring semester.  
Susan will contact committee members by e-mail regarding the next 
meeting.

2.  The Faculty Senate is working on establishing staggered terms 
for members of GSAC.  Procedures are already in place for selecting 
a new student representative.  Any current members of GSAC willing 
to stay on for another year should contact the governance office.

3.  Concerning clarification of time limits for earning degrees--This 
issue has been discussed in the GCAC.  We concur with that 
committee's assertion that the clock should begin running when the 
student is admitted to a program.  GCAC will resolve this issue, and 
draft clear wording for the catalog.

4.  Concerning paperwork required by the graduate school, everyone 
agreed that the Graduate Study Plan should guide the student until 
the Advancement to Candidacy is filed.  The Advancement to 
Candidacy will be the official document.

5.  In response to students' concerns, GSAC is drafting a statement 
intended to generate discussion of graduate students¹ intellectual 
property rights.  This draft will circulate via department and faculty 
senate channels.

6.  The graduate school is NOT requiring departments or advisors to 
review within one week of registration all courses taken by 
students on tuition waivers or grant support.  The memo stating this 
(sent out by Admissions and Records) was in error.

7.  At the next GSAC meeting, we will discuss whether to continue 
the university requirement of GRE scores.  Departments and/or 
programs may of course continue to require the scores if they wish.


Dr. Kan will put out a memo to all graduate programs, asking for
ideas and reactions to the issues discussed in items 3, 4, and 5.  
GSAC will appreciate responses from any concerned faculty or 
students.


********************
ATTACHMENT 69/12
UAF FACULTY SENATE #69
FEBRUARY 10, 1997
SUBMITTED BY CORE REVIEW COMMITTEE


CORE Review Committee Report- Jin Brown, Chair


Progress in Assessment of the CORE Curriculum


The CORE Review Committee was given the responsibility of 
educational effectiveness evaluation of the CORE Curriculum in Fall 
of 1996.  At that time we took the suggestion of Professor Dana 
Thomas and the University's Educational Effectiveness Evaluation 
Team and chose to initiate a pilot project this school year.  The 
"Communications'' area of the CORE curriculum was chosen after the 
Communication Department volunteered to participate in the pilot 
group.  Library Science was added in order that our first year's 
progress be in more than one area, but be manageable with our other 
responsibilities.


While the three Departments involved in the pilot work 
(Communication, English, and Library Science) have initiated 
planning for assessment, two of those Departments have experienced 
personnel changes that have interrupted the ongoing planning.  Alane 
Wilson has left Library Science and Dennis Stephens has assumed her 
regular duties along with maintaining his own.  Joan Worley has 
recently stepped down from the EEE Team and from her Evaluation 
role in the English Department.  Cynthia Walker has not yet named a 
replacement for Professor Worley in the evaluation planning.

***

After working with Jim Ratcliff, the Assessment consultant who the 
UAF administration invited to campus for a seminar and workshops, 
we understand that the English Department has plans to incorporate 
a portfolio process into their evaluation procedures.

***

Library Science was in the planning stages of assessing their own 
program when the Regent's plans were announced and will extend 
their self-assessment to provide information to the CORE Review.

***

The UAF Communication Department has implemented an extensive 
assessment of its CORE service courses.  Building on the 
restructuring of those courses that has been in process over the last 
three years, Communication has embedded student learning 
evaluation in a way that will not only provide quantitative and 
qualitative evaluation data on students passing through their 
courses, but done so in a way that will use the evaluation process to 
enact an innovative reflexive learning loop in each student's course 
experience. A detailed discussion of the Communication Department 
evaluation of CORE courses can be arranged for those interested. At 
this time, numerical data on student learning in the Fall semester 
(1996) is being loaded into a computer program (SPSS 7.0 for 
windows) for analysis.  Six sections of the CORE service courses 
have video taped every student presentation of the first, third, and 
final speaking assignments.  These procedures are in place as an 
ongoing aspect of evaluation in the courses. Also, in Fall, 1996, 
Graduate students working with Communication faculty began a 
process of surveying professors who teach "O" (upper division Oral) 
courses, seeking interest in a workshop that would assist in the 
assessment of oral performance in those courses.  The workshop 
will introduce faculty to broad criteria by which oral presentations 
are evaluated by the Speech Communication Association and help 
adjust such criteria to the needs of specific disciplinary 
presentations.

***

The CORE Review Committee has contacted each Department that 
presents courses in Perspectives on the Human Condition (letters on 
10 November, 1996) and asked that department faculty who present 
the courses begin intra departmental discussions of how CORE 
courses will be evaluated.  Further, each department has been asked 
to anticipate working with other departments which share CORE 
course presentations so that interdepartmental decisions can be 
made on those courses.  Departments have been asked to have a plan 
for evaluation that could be implemented in Fall of 1997.  It may be 
optimistic to anticipate that all Perspectives courses will be 
evaluated in the Fall semester, however the three year window that 
the Regents have given us suggests that we need interdepartmental 
cooperation and planning to begin immediately.

***

The CORE Review Committee has sent forward a motion in regard to 
assessment.  We believe that we must begin now to anticipate our 
responsibility for continuous reporting on evaluation, therefore we 
have made a motion that any future courses submitted for 
consideration of CORE inclusion must have an assessment plan as a 
part of the proposal and that such plans be commensurate to the 
assessment plans for other courses with which the suggested course 
will share credit fulfillment (e. g. Comm 300X with Phil 322X and PS 
300X).  We are attempting to only invent such wheels once for each 
requirement.  While we must remain flexible with the evaluation of 
the CORE, just as we are with the CORE, there must be some 
guidelines in place.  The CORE Review Committee believes 
anticipation is a better strategy than retrofitting.