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

For Audioconferencing:  Bridge #:  1-800-910-9710
				Anchorage:  561-9710


A G E N D A UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #79 Monday, April 6, 1998 1:30 p.m. - 4:10 p.m. Wood Center Ballroom
1:30 I Call to Order - John Craven 5 Min. A. Roll Call B. Approval of Minutes to Meeting #78 C. Adoption of Agenda 1:35 II Status of Chancellor's Office Actions 5 Min. A. Motions Approved: 1. Motion to approve a new policy on academic probation. 2. Motion to approve a new policy on academic disqualification. 3. Motion to adopt an interim promotion & tenure process for ACCFT faculty associated with the UAF MAU. B. Motions Pending: none 1:40 III A. Remarks by Chancellor J. Wadlow 10 Min. B. Remarks by Provost J. Keating 5 Min. 1:55 IV Governance Reports A. ASUAF - J. Richardson 5 Min. B. Staff Council - P. Long 5 Min. C. President's Report - J. Craven 10 Min. (Attachment 79/1) D. President-Electıs Comments - M. Schatz 10 Min. (Attachment 79/2) 2:25 V Public Comments/Questions 5 Min. 2:30 VI OLD BUSINESS A. Motion prohibiting faculty from receiving 5 Min. a graduate degree from UAF, submitted by Faculty & Scholarly Affairs (Attachment 79/3) 2:35 VII New Business A. Election of the 1998-99 UAF Faculty Senate President-Elect (Handout) ***BREAK*** 10 Min. 2:50 B. Resolution to ratify the election of 1998-99 5 Min. UAF Faculty Senate President-Elect, submitted by Administrative Committee (Attachment 79/4) C. Motion to amend the Deadlines for Academic 5 Min. Changes to include a spring review cycle for New Degree Programs and Deletion of Programs, submitted by Curricular Affairs (Attachment 79/5) D. Resolution to recommend the insertion of 5 Min. the URL address of UAF on the front cover of the UAF catalog, submitted by Curricular Affairs (Attachment 79/6) E. Motion to recommend revisions of the 5 Min. proposed Regents' Policy and University Regulation 09.06.00, submitted by Curricular Affairs (Attachment 79/7) F. Motion on UAF Faculty Senate meeting 5 Min. calendar for 1998-99, submitted by Administrative Committee (Attachment 79/8) G. Motion to assign credit to faculty members 5 Min. responsible for supervising students, submitted by Faculty & Scholarly Affairs (Attachment 79/9) H. Motion to create a Permanent Committee on 5 Min. Faculty Seminars, submitted by Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement (Attachment 79/10) I. Motion to endorse membership on an Ad Hoc 5 Min. Committee on Unit Criteria, submitted by Administrative Committee (Attachment 79/11) J. Motion to endorse membership on an Ad Hoc 5 Min. Committee on Senate/Union relations, submitted by Administrative Committee (Attachment 79/12) 3:35 VII Committee Reports 20 Min. A. Curricular Affairs - G. McBeath (Attachment 79/13) B. Faculty & Scholarly Affairs - R. Gavlak C. Graduate & Professional Curricular Affairs - M. Whalen (Attachment 79/14) D. Core Review - J. Brown (Attachment 79/15) E. Curriculum Review - J. French F. Developmental Studies - J. Weber G. Faculty Appeals & Oversight - J. Kelley H. Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement - D. Porter I. Graduate School Advisory Committee - S. Henrichs (Attachment 79/16) J. Legislative & Fiscal Affairs - S. Deal (Attachment 79/17) K. Service Committee - K. Nance L. Ad Hoc Committees (Attachment 79/18) 3:55 VIII Discussion Items A. Governance/Union relations 5 Min. B. RIP-1, latest status (handout) 5 Min. 4:05 IX Members' Comments/Questions 5 Min. 4:10 X Adjournment *************** ATTACHMENT 79/1 UAF FACULTY SENATE #79 APRIL 6, 1998 Report by John Craven, Senate President Welcome to the 79th meeting of UAF's Faculty Senate, at which we will elect the next president elect of this Senate. We have one nomination as of March 30th, with nominations closing at this meeting. After nominations are closed, I will give each candidate an opportunity to make a few remarks to the Senate and time will then be provided for senators to question the candidates. If the Senate wishes, we can then ask the candidates to leave the room and have any further discussion, as per your wishes. In my years on the Senate I have only seen this done once, and I believe you should be provided with that opportunity. Candidates will rejoin us at the conclusion of this discussion and balloting will begin. Senators at the rural sites will have been provided ballots before the meeting and will be asked to vote and immediately forward their ballots by FAX to the Governance Office. Ballot counting will take place during a break in the meeting and the results announced when we are reconvened. We have only two senate meetings remaining with which to complete business for this academic year. As usual, we are presented with a large number of motions and resolutions for your consideration, and we can expect additional motions at the final meeting. Please read the motions and resolutions carefully in advance to help expedite the consideration of each one. However, do not hold back on questions during the meeting just because you might be worried about time. It is more important that an issue before the Senate be fully considered than it is to complete the day's agenda. We now have the responsibility along with the Registrar for drafting the academic calendar in each year. I have sent a memo to Ann Tremarello asking for her recommendations for '99-00 so you have time to consider this before the end of this semester. This committee will, naturally, not violate any Senate rules, but it must also not violate any Regents' rules and regulations, or anything else that they think they made a rule. The UAF Governance Coordinating Committee will then help gain approval of the three governance groups. Speaking of the Governance Coordinating Committee, it took a year and a half, but my forgotten motion has been revived. The committee is now looking at itself to figure out what its real task is in life. It is off to a good start. Many of you heard Ron Gatterdam's comment at the last Senate meeting, in which he reminded us that this was even a problem when the committee was formed in the late '80s. See, just one more example of why it is better to do it right the first time! President-elect Schatz has indicated that revisions of the UAF Faculty Senate's Constitution and Bylaws will be on the agenda next year. I support that effort, for after two years in the Senate's leadership I am seeing areas where alterations would be fruitful. The most obvious example was clearly pointed out by Senator McBeath when we began considering the Regents' drafts of the student affairs policies and regulations: We don't have a committee for student issues. There are other committees in need of being investigated, for if year after year they appear to be inactive or grossly underutilized, maybe they are. *************** ATTACHMENT 79/2 UAF FACULTY SENATE #79 APRIL 6, 1998 Comments by Madeline Schutz, President-Elect In my conversations with local and statewide administrators I am becoming more and more hopeful that there may still be a bright future for the University of Alaska. I am hearing that the real leaders of Alaska, the long-time residents who have been loyal to our institution, are putting a great deal of pressure on the legislature to change their attitude toward the university. Very often it takes a crisis to wake us up out of our lethargy. I know that I've been more active politically during the past two years than I have been in the rest of my life. The university is important to me. Things are changing. People are jumping on our bandwagon. It is incumbent upon us to produce the best university possible. Keep up your good work. Don't stop now. Keep the letters and POM's flowing to Juneau. They are beginning to listen! Madeline *************** ATTACHMENT 79/3 UAF FACULTY SENATE #79 APRIL 6, 1998 SUBMITTED BY FACULTY AND SCHOLARLY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE MOTION ======= The UAF Faculty Senate moves to prohibit tenured faculty, tenure track faculty, and research faculty hired after this motion becomes effective, or not currently enrolled in a graduate degree program, from receiving a graduate degree from UAF. EFFECTIVE: Immediately RATIONALE: It is ethically questionable for faculty to confer graduate degrees upon themselves. Included are tenured, tenure track, and research faculty. Though research faculty are not tenured, they are equivalent to regular faculty in other ways: they are full-time, they are presumed to have graduate degrees or the equivalent before starting the job, and most importantly, they supervise graduate students and sometimes teach as affiliates to academic departments. Thus they are involved in the degree-granting process. The motion is not intended to restrict faculty professional development derived from enrolling in courses to enhance one's performance in one's own field. Tenured, tenure track, and research faculty already in graduate degree programs by the effective date of the motion, are grandfathered. For questionable cases, the affected individual should process his/her appeal through the Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee of the UAF Faculty Senate. *************** ATTACHMENT 79/4 UAF FACULTY SENATE #79 APRIL 6, 1998 SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE RESOLUTION =========== BE IT RESOLVED, That the UAF Faculty Senate ratifies the election of President-Elect on the basis of the following ballot. BALLOT PRESIDENT-ELECT Please vote for ONE individual to serve as the President-Elect of the UAF Faculty Senate for 1997-98. Ron Gatterdam, Professor Computer Sciences & Mathematics _________________________ ****************** PERSONAL STATEMENT: Ron Gatterdam My philosophy of the Faculty Senate has changed little since I helped launch the Senate. I have long held the view that the value of research and the meaning of degrees are a reflection of the knowledge, tradition, and integrity of the faculty. The essence of an academic degree is contained in the words "upon recommendation of the faculty". That phrase carries with it the joint and mutual tradition of the UAF faculty. The Senate, as the body entrusted by the faculty to set procedures and standards for the implementation of the academic process and the awarding of degrees, is much more than one of several bodies representing University constituencies. It is the soul of the University. Philosophy is all well and good, but what about pragmatics? Certainly the Senate must continue to support expanded research opportunities and continued academic quality. It would be pleasant to believe that the financial picture for the University will improve but I'm not sanguine. I believe that the University faces frugal fiscal times for the next several years. Therefore it is imperative that the Alaskan public understands the importance of UAF to the intellectual and financial future of the State. The Senate can play a prominent role in getting the word out. Of most importance, the faculty must not allow the course of the University to be determined by attrition. The Senate has an obligation to assist the Regents to formulate an attainable vision for the future and to lead the implementation of that vision. There are two personal issues concerning my candidacy that I wish to address head on. First, I have been an outspoken critic of the administration. Given that, can I work effectively with the administration and the Regents? I can only observe that I was every bit as critical of the previous administration and was able to work productively during the difficult period of the University/Community College merger. Many compromises were necessary. In fact, the Senate was one of them. Second, I was opposed to the formation of a faculty union. I remain concerned that UAF will become UAA with institutes adjoined - not my vision for the future of UAF. I hope the union can not be used toward that end. So, can I work with the union? The union exists. The union and Senate must work together. I welcome the union in the hope that it will free the Senate from personnel concerns to concentrate on academic matters. I don't believe the philosophy I have expressed is in any way contrary to that of the union. The University will change. The role of UAF in the State will change. Right now my sense is that if anyone has a vision for UAF in that future it has yet to be articulated. It is up to the faculty to become a major focus for setting the direction for UAF--not out of self- interest, but out of concern for the intellectual and financial health of Alaska. With your concurrence, I'd like to help establish that focus. *************** ATTACHMENT 79/5 UAF FACULTY SENATE #79 APRIL 6, 1998 SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS MOTION ======= The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the Schedule for Formats and Deadlines for Academic Requests as originally outlined on page 5 of the UAF Faculty Senate 1997-98 COURSE AND DEGREE PROCEDURES MANUAL: New Degree Program and Delete Program categories shall each add a second review period of mid-March. EFFECTIVE: Fall 1998 RATIONALE: As presently scheduled, these two categories are the only ones not having a second review period in the spring semester. Adding this second review period would create a consistent policy throughout the categories. It makes sense, in terms of the financial volatility of UAF to create a second period of evaluation where the effect of constant cuts could be reflected in actual degree programs. *************** ATTACHMENT 79/6 UAF FACULTY SENATE #79 APRIL 6, 1998 SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS RESOLUTION =========== BE IT RESOLVED, That the UAF Faculty Senate recommends the insertion of the URL address of UAF on the front cover of the UAF catalog. The printed catalogue should publish a statement that "this catalogue is valid as of (date of publication). For the most current version see our website at (UAF URL)." The website catalogue should then be updated on a semester basis to reflect changes to courses and programs. EFFECTIVE: Fall 1998 RATIONALE: Though it is felt by some that having an updated printed catalogue available for prospective students six months earlier than presently available, the Ad Hoc Committee unanimously agreed that publication of the catalogue should not drive the deadline for changes in courses and programs. The UAF catalogue found on the UA website should be updated on a consistent level and printed with the URL address thus allowing prospective students the opportunity to access any changes which might be made after the publication of a catalogue. The Fall submission dates are extremely early for some faculty (especially those returning after a sabbatical or leave of absence). Changing the dates would not give faculty sufficient time to prepare changes to their programs or courses. The catalogue could still be distributed at any time on recruiting trips by university officials without upsetting the more orderly and timely process for faculty. If course or program changes need to be made toward the end of the first semester it is too long a time to wait until the following Fall semester for these changes. *************** ATTACHMENT 79/7 UAF FACULTY SENATE #79 APRIL 6, 1998 SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS MOTION ======= The UAF Faculty Senate recommends the revisions of the proposed Regents' Policy and Univesity Regulation 09.06.00-- Services for Students with Disabilities as proposed by the Curricular Affairs Committee and to forward these recommendations to the Faculty Alliance *************** The committee considered the proposed policy and regulations for students with disabilities as submitted by the Board of Regents to the Faculty Alliance. Chapter 06. Definitions F. Student with a Disability. In the opinion of the committee, this section required either a cross-reference to the definitions in the regulations (Chapter 6, Provision of Appropriate Academic Adjustments ... A. Requesting Accommodation for Students...) or the definition in policy should state that documentation of disability status needs to be supplied. Accommodation of Students with Disabilities. Maynard Perkins questioned how this section of policy would apply to rural sites. The committee thought the language in the section (for example, implementation subject to resource limitations and the making of reasonable modifications and adjustments) would protect the university against exorbitant costs, but thought the language should be reviewed by university legal counsel Provision of Appropriate Academic Adjustments... Section B.2. The committee found the wording of this section inappropriate in a university that prizes cooperative and not adversarial approaches to the resolution of issues. It recommended substituting the following language: "2. Suggesting appropriate academic adjustments and other programmatic accommodations for qualified students with disabilities in consultation with faculty and staff, in accordance with Regents' Policy, University Regulation, MAU rules and procedures, and established faculty senate procedures, and working cooperatively with faculty and staff for their provision and coordination." Section C. Responsibilities of Faculty and Staff in providing accommodations for students with disabilities. The committee thought this section was adversarial and instituted administrative directives to faculty and staff. It recommended these changes: "Faculty and staff will work with the DSS coordinator to agree upon and provide appropriate academic adjustments and other programmatic accommodations. The university will make training available to faculty and staff regarding adequate accommodation for students with disabilities." The committee recommended the deletion of the following paragraph (beginning "The dean or director of a program....) because it would be superfluous if a cooperative approach were instituted. Comments on Regulations Section A. Requesting Accommodations for students. l. This paragraph has the same problems as the parallel policy language. The committee recommended substituting it with the following: "If the student is eligible for services, the DSS coordinator or designee will work cooperatively with faculty and staff to design appropriate academic adjustments and other programmatic accommodations, with a copy to the student. Section B. Implementation of Authorized Appropriate... The committee proposed the deletion of this paragraph, which would be unnecessary if a cooperative approach were implemented. In the opinion of the committee, these issues required a joint effort of the DSS official and faculty/staff. *************** ATTACHMENT 79/8 UAF FACULTY SENATE #79 APRIL 6, 1998 SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE MOTION ======= The UAF Faculty Senate moves to adopt the following calendar for its 1998-99 meetings. EFFECTIVE: Immediately RATIONALE: Meetings have to be scheduled and the Wood Center Ballroom reserved well in advance. ************ UAF FACULTY SENATE 1998-99 Calendar of Meetings Mtg. # Date Day Time Type 81 9/14/98 Monday 1:30 p.m. audioconference 82 10/12/98 Monday 1:30 p.m. audioconference 83 11/16/98 Monday 1:30 p.m. face-to-face 84 12/7/98 Monday 1:30 p.m. audioconference 85 2/8/99 Monday 1:30 p.m. face-to-face 86 3/8/99 Monday 1:30 p.m. audioconference 87 4/5/99 Monday 1:30 p.m. audioconference 88 5/3/99 Monday 1:30 p.m. audioconference/ face-to-face Location: Wood Center Ballroom *************** ATTACHMENT 79/9 UAF FACULTY SENATE #79 APRIL 6, 1998 SUBMITTED BY FACULTY & SCHOLARLY AFFAIRS MOTION ======= The UAF Faculty Senate moves to assign graduate thesis, research, and special topic credits to the faculty member(s) immediately and directly responsible for supervising the students. EFFECTIVE: Immediately RATIONALE: Graduate supervision is a time consuming instruction activity and both BOR policy and the United Academics contract to identify graduate instruction (etc.) as components of the faculty workload. The contract requires a greater accountability for workload, and tracking the "credit hours" back to the faculty will help document actual workload. It is often the case that more than one faculty member takes the lead role in directing the student. It is likely and desirable that the graduate committee members will sort out an appropriate allocation of the "credit hours"; however, it is important to ensure that these allocations are not triggered by some mechanical algorithm that always assigns credit to the committee chair. *************** ATTACHMENT 79/10 UAF FACULTY SENATE #79 APRIL 6, 1998 SUBMITTED BY FACULTY DEVELOPMENT, ASSESSMENT & IMPROVEMENT MOTION ======= The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend Section 3 (ARTICLE V: Committees, Permanent) of the Bylaws to create a Permanent Committee on Faculty Seminars. EFFECTIVE: Immediately RATIONALE: In 1996-97 the Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement Committee initiated a Faculty Seminar Series by UAF faculty recently returned from sabbatical leaves and/or engaged in significant research projects. Two seminars were held. The success of these seminars is dependent on long- range scheduling, timely and accurate promotion, proper arrangements for the lecture at the venue and an appropriate reception. It was determined by the Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement committee during the demonstration year for the Faculty Seminar Series that the effective execution of the tasks associated with a successful series was incompatible with an expectation that the important and traditional functions of the Permanent Committee on Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement. *************** ATTACHMENT 79/11 UAF FACULTY SENATE #79 APRIL 6, 1998 SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE MOTION ======= The UAF Faculty Senate moves to endorse the following membership on the Ad Hoc Committee on Unit Criteria. Ron Gatterdam, Curricular Affairs Ray Gavlak, Faculty & Scholarly Affairs Michael Whalen, Graduate & Professional Curricular Affairs Rich Seifert, Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement Kara Nance, Service Committee EFFECTIVE: Immediately RATIONALE: The UAF Faculty Senate has been informed by Executive Dean Ralph Gabrielli that the ACCFT "Guidelines for Promotion and Tenure Review Process for UAF ACCFT members (Unit Criteria) needs to be approved by the Senate in order to proceed with the review of the candidate up for tenure this year. (The Senate approved a one-time acceptance of the ACCFT review procedures at the last meeting.) *************** ATTACHMENT 79/12 UAF FACULTY SENATE #79 APRIL 6, 1998 SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE MOTION ======= The UAF Faculty Senate moves to endorse the following membership on the Ad Hoc Committee on Senate/Union Relations. Ron Gatterdam, Curricular Affairs (Chair) Ray Gavlak, Faculty & Scholarly Affairs David Porter, Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement Ron Illingworth, ACCFT John French, United Academics EFFECTIVE: Immediately RATIONALE: Senate bylaws specify that the Senate President may create and appoint members to any ad hoc committee necessary for conducting Senate business. Ad hoc committees are subject to later ratification by the Senate. This committee was formed in November and has met several times. With the ratification of the ACCFT and United Academics contracts this committee continues to serve a function for the Senate. *************** ATTACHMENT 79/13 UAF FACULTY SENATE #79 APRIL 6, 1998 SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS Minutes of Curricular Affairs Committee meeting, 3/23/98 The committee met in Wood Center B, at 3:02 p.m. on March 23rd. In attendance were John French, Wanda Martin, Carol Barnhardt, Alex Fitts, Gayle Gregory, Jane Weber, Maynard Perkins (by audio link), and Jerry McBeath--constituting a quorum of the committee. The committee acted on three agenda items: 1. PETITION PROCESS The subcommittee on the petition process (Ron Gatterdam, Gayle Gregory, and Paul Reichardt) presented a motion to the committee, composed of three separate petition processes. After discussion, the last item was revised, and an appeal process was added. The revised motion was placed before the body, which adopted it unanimously. The motion reads: MOTION The Faculty Senate delegates the authority to approve exceptions to academic policy (petitions) as follows: l. For matters involving the CORE CURRICULUM: Faculty advisor, head of the department(s) involved, through the Graduation Office to the Chairman of the Core Curriculum Committee. 2. For matters involving the MAJOR OR MINOR DEGREE REQUIREMENTS: Faculty advisor, head of the department involved, to the Graduation Office. 3. For OTHER matters: Faculty advisor, dean of the college/school involved, through the Graduation Office to the Chairman of the Curricular Affairs Committee Any appeal of this policy will be referred to the Curricular Affairs Committee for resolution. RATIONALE The current petition process is too cumbersome and involves too many parties. The proposed motion will simplify the process by reducing the number of parties. The proposed policy clearly demonstrates the authority of the faculty senate to approve any exception to the academic policies it has approved. It provides academic quality assurance. The current policy lacks any point of reference in the petition process. The proposal establishes that point of reference and accountability in the graduation office for all petitions. EFFECTIVE DATE End of the spring semester, 1998. The chair asked the subcommittee on petition to consider a related issue--improvements in the quality of faculty advising on academic policy issues. 2. COMMENTS ON POLICY 09.06.00--SERVICES FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES The committee considered the proposed policy and regulations for students with disabilities. Comments/revisions follow the draft statement of the committee chaired by 'Nanne Myers: Chapter 06. Definitions F. Student with a Disability. In the opinion of the committee, this section required either a cross-reference to the definitions in the regulations (Chapter 6, Provision of Appropriate Academic Adjustments ... A. Requesting Accommodation for Students...) or the definition in policy should state that documentation of disability status needs to be supplied. Accommodation of Students with Disabilities. Maynard Perkins questioned how this section of policy would apply to rural sites. The committee thought the language in the section (for example, implementation subject to resource limitations and the making of reasonable modifications and adjustments) would protect the university against exorbitant costs, but thought the language should be reviewed by university legal counsel Provision of Appropriate Academic Adjustments... Section B.2. The committee found the wording of this section inappropriate in a university that prizes cooperative and not adversarial approaches to the resolution of issues. It recommended substituting the following language: "2. Suggesting appropriate academic adjustments and other programmatic accommodations for qualified students with disabilities in consultation with faculty and staff, in accordance with Regents' Policy, University Regulation, MAU rules and procedures, and established faculty senate procedures, and working cooperatively with faculty and staff for their provision and coordination." Section C. Responsibilities of Faculty and Staff in providing accommodations for students with disabilities. The committee thought this section was adversarial and instituted administrative directives to faculty and staff. It recommended these changes: "Faculty and staff will work with the DSS coordinator to agree upon and provide appropriate academic adjustments and other programmatic accommodations. The university will make training available to faculty and staff regarding adequate accommodation for students with disabilities." The committee recommended the deletion of the following paragraph (beginning "The dean or director of a program....) because it would be superfluous if a cooperative approach were instituted. Comments on Regulations Section A. Requesting Accommodations for students. l. This paragraph has the same problems as the parallel policy language. The committee recommended substituting it with the following: "If the student is eligible for services, the DSS coordinator or designee will work cooperatively with faculty and staff to design appropriate academic adjustments and other programmatic accommodations, with a copy to the student. Section B. Implementation of Authorized Appropriate... The committee proposed the deletion of this paragraph, which would be unnecessary if a cooperative approach were implemented. In the opinion of the committee, these issues required a joint effort of the DSS official and faculty/staff. Ron Gatterdam, seconded by Jane Weber, moved that the faculty senate adopt these revisions to the proposed policy and regulations on services for students with disabilities, and the committee agreed (unanimously). 3. THE SYLLABUS The committee returned to its discussion of the nature of the university syllabus. It accepted these definitions and examples: A syllabus is a statement or outline of the subjects covered by a course of teaching; a program of study. (Reference: Oxford English Dictionary, Shorter edition, 1993). At the University of Alaska Fairbanks, the syllabus an instructor gives students typically contains: -- a statement of the course objectives -- a list of required textbooks or other course materials -- the criteria (e.g., participation, examinations, papers, reports) on the basis of which students' grades are determined --the grading system used in the course (pass/fail, letter grade) -- consequences of honor code violations -- withdrawal deadlines -- an outline of topics covered in the course and calendar list of out-of-class assignments to help students prepare themselves for class -- instructor's contact information (name, office location, telephone extension, e-mail address, office hours) The committee adopted this as the committee definition of the syllabus at UAF, and requested that it be placed as an information item on the next senate agenda. The committee adjourned at 4:06 p.m. Uncorrected minutes submitted by Jerry McBeath. *************** ATTACHMENT 79/14 UAF FACULTY SENATE #79 APRIL 6, 1998 SUBMITTED BY GRADUATE & PROFESSIONAL CURRICULAR AFFAIRS Graduate and Professional Curricular Affairs Committee Report, Mike Whalen, Chair The GPCAC met on 26 March 1994 and discussed the issue of the new Master's degree requirements that were to take effect in Fall 1998. Discussion revolved around the issue of the elimination of course- work based master's degrees by the new requirements. Several programs including physics, electrical engineering, and most MAT programs offered master's degrees that are essentially course-work based and do not require a thesis or project. Similar degree programs are available at universities nationwide. Based on the input the committee has received from various programs as well as from the GSAC the committee determined that elimination of this category of master's degrees was undesirable. We have proposed a motion to reinstate course work based masters degrees under a Master of Science or Master of Arts without thesis option. PROPOSED MOTION ================ The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the minimum requirements for Master's Degrees. These new requirements should be listed in the UAF catalogue as follows: CAPS = Additions [[ ]] = Deletions For all Master's Degree Programs, the following must be met: a. Submit a Graduate Study Plan (GSP) and an Appointment of Committee Form to the Graduate School by the end of the second semester in attendance. b. Be registered for at least 6 credits per year (fall, spring, and summer combined), or have an approved leave of absence form on file. C. PASS A WRITTEN AND/OR ORAL COMPREHENSIVE EXAMINATION WHICH MAY BE COMBINED WITH A PROJECT OR THESIS DEFENSE. IN SOME PROGRAMS (E.G., THE MBA PROGRAM) A CAPSTONE COURSE, THAT INCLUDES DEMONSTRATION OF THE ABILITY TO SYNTHESIZE INFORMATION IN THE FIELD AT A LEVEL APPROPRIATE FOR A MASTER'S DEGREE, MAY BE SUBSTITUTED FOR A COMPREHENSIVE EXAMINATION. [[c.]] D. Submit an Advancement to Candidacy form to the Graduate School. Once submitted, this form supplants the GSP and serves to formally establish specific degree requirements. [[d.]] E. Submit an application for graduation and be registered for at least 3 graduate credits in the semester in which the degree is to be awarded; and [[e.]] F. Complete all degree requirements within the 7-year time limit allowed. Furthermore, the following additional requirements are the minimum requirements for Master's Degrees: For a Master's of Science or Master's of Arts Degree - with thesis Successfully complete at least 30 credits of course work including at least 6 credits of thesis (699). (No more than 12 thesis/research (699/698) credits may be counted towards the minimum degree credits). At least 24 credits must be at the 600 LEVEL or above, except for a Master's of Arts in Music, which must have at least 21 credits at the 600 level or above. [[Pass a written and/or oral comprehensive exam (may be combined with the thesis defense.)]] Publicly present and defend thesis. Submit a completed and signed thesis defense form to the Graduate School. Archive thesis in UAF Library. Master's of Science or Master's of Arts Degree - [[with project]] WITHOUT THESIS Successfully complete at least 30 credits of course work. [[including at least 6 credits of project work (698). (No more than 6 research (698) credits may be counted towards the minimum degree credits.)]] AT LEAST 24 CREDITS (21 CREDITS FOR A MASTER OF ARTS IN MUSIC) MUST BE REGULAR COURSEWORK AT THE 600 LEVEL OR ABOVE NOT INCLUDING RESEARCH, PROJECT OR THESIS COURSEWORK. [[At least 24 credits must be at the 600 level or above, except for a Master's of Arts in Music, which must have at least 21 credits at the 600 level or above.]] [[Pass a written and/or oral comprehensive exam (may be combined with the project defense.)]] IF A PROJECT IS INCLUDED AS PART OF THE DEGREE PROGRAM THE STUDENT MUST: Publicly present and defend project. Submit a completed and signed project defense form to the Graduate School. Archive project in UAF Library. For a Professional Master's Degree (i.e., Master's of Business Administration, Education, etc.) Successfully complete at least 30 credits of course work (research or thesis credits NOT included). At least 24 credits must be at the 600 level or above (research or thesis credits NOT included). [[Successful completion of a comprehensive exam or capstone course that includes demonstration of the ability to synthesize information in the field at a level appropriate for a Master's degree.]] Note on Implementation of Motion: It is the understanding of the Graduate & PROFESSIONAL Curricular Affairs Committee that changes to existing programs degree requirements or the name of the degree which may be necessitated by this policy, if implemented, will need final approval of the Graduate & PROFESSIONAL Curricular Affairs Committee, but does not constitute a new degree offering, and will not need approval by the Board of Regents. No minimum presented herein prohibits programs from requiring additional work. The adjustments that have been made from existing programs include the requirement for the non-thesis project to be documented and in some manner archived in the Library (i.e. slides, recording, report.) EFFECTIVE: Fall 1998 RATIONALE: The master's degree requirements, passed during UAF Faculty Senate meeting #71, omitted or eliminated several categories of master's degrees that had previously been offered by UAF and are commonly offered at other universities nationwide. These omissions or eliminations would have had serious ramifications for students pursuing master's degrees in several programs. The intent of the original motion was to set minimum standards and reduce the disparity in requirements for different categories of master's degrees. The proposed amendments to the motion serve to further that goal and rectify the omission or elimination of master's degree programs that have been and continue to be a vital part of the UAF graduate curriculum. *************** ATTACHMENT 79/15 UAF FACULTY SENATE #79 APRIL 6, 1998 SUBMITTED BY CORE REVIEW The Core Review Committee reports the status of their work on the following items: 1. Merging of Core Course Assessment work to include CRA faculty is proceeding successfully. 2. Assessment of first round of "O" & "W" requirement of Core will occur at the end of this semester. 3. First report of Core Curriculum Assessment (Perspectives on the Human Condition, Library Science, and Communications) will be submitted at the end of May. Jin Brown, Chair *************** ATTACHMENT 79/16 UAF FACULTY SENATE #79 APRIL 6, 1998 SUBMITTED BY GRADUATE SCHOOL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes, Graduate School Advisory Committee, 3/11/97 Attending: Susan Henrichs, Mark Herrmann, Brenton Watkins, Mary Ann Sweeney, Kim Dempsey (Graduate School), Anthropology Department Representative Phyllis Morrow 1. The issue of registration requirements for students who spend extended periods doing field work away from the University was discussed. The specific example of Anthropology Ph.D. students, who often spend several years in the field, was discussed. They now have two options: (a) part-time registration for a minimum of 6 credits, which is a financial hardship given that most of them have no external funding for tuition. This also appears to the students to have a high cost/benefit ratio, since they are not using university facilities or other resources. (b) leave-of-absence, which many choose for financial reasons, but which prevents the department and university from counting them as enrolled. GSAC discussed the old extended registration option, but that would not address the problem because extended registration was more costly than simply registering for 3 credits/semester. Dr. Watkins pointed out that there is a broader problem with tuition; because of the requirement that grants provide students with 9 credits tuition/semester, and because total grant awards are often (albeit informally) capped at a certain level, fewer students are being supported than in the past. GSAC agreed that there probably should be some further consideration of the cost/benefit of tuition policies, but that this was beyond the scope of the original question. GSAC concluded that the chair would draft a letter to Dr. Kan asking him to explore options for students in situations similar to those in Anthropology, including: tuition waivers; reduced cost/credit for off-campus students; opportunities for part-time tuition scholarships. 2. Dr. Henrichs presented a brief report on TA training at UAF and proposed some recommendations to be included in the report, to be submitted to the Faculty Senate and Provost. After discussion, the following recommendations were agreed upon: (1) At least one graduate seminar on teaching at the college/university level should be offered each year, probably through the Graduate School. This seminar should be open to students from all fields and emphasize aspects of teaching that apply to all disciplines. Students whose own departments lack formal TA instruction should be particularly encouraged to enroll. (2) UAF policies should encourage "mentored teaching" by graduate students. Such "mentored teaching" would include a faculty member's close supervision, observation, evaluation, and instruction to improve graduate student teaching. UAF policies should allow for: (1) Students to receive both TAships and course credit for mentored teaching under appropriate conditions. (2) Faculty members' workload assignment to include credit for time spent in mentored teaching. (3) UAF policy should be that Departments have the authority and responsibility to ensure that TAs have English skills sufficient to carry out their assigned duties. In particular, Departments can require English courses or other remedial work for TAs who do not have the necessary English skills. 3. GSAC agreed to the following recommendations, to be submitted to GPCAC: The Graduate School Advisory Committee is concerned that the planned implementation of revised University-wide Master's requirements in Fall of 1998 will have adverse effects on some Departments and students. In particular, it is clear that some Department requirements are not consistent with the new UAF requirements. Therefore, we recommend that GPCAC draft a motion for consideration by the Faculty Senate that asks for a delay in the implementation of the requirements until at least Fall, 1999. In addition, the Graduate School Advisory Committee recommends that GPCAC reconsider the new Master's requirements in light of concerns expressed by several programs that (1) They did not have sufficient opportunity to contribute to the process of developing the new requirements. (2) The new requirements require changes in long-established, successful degree programs whose existing requirements are entirely consistent with national norms in particular disciplines. (3) Too much centralization and homogenization of Master's requirements (or other degree requirements) is unnecessary and undesirable. Real differences exist among disciplines in the nature of the Master's, for example, whether it is often a terminal degree or whether it is normally a milestone for students pursuing the Ph.D. University-wide requirements should be flexible enough to accommodate these differences. 4. GSAC discussed the issue of course-only Master's degrees (or those requiring only a small project, representing 3 credits of effort). If the UAF requirements are amended (or restored to the original) to allow this, should such degrees be restricted to departments which offer the Ph.D.? GSAC members agreed to the following recommendation, to be forwarded to GPCAC. Departmental authority to award a Master's degree should be granted based on the quality of the proposed degree program, in light of UAF resources, requirements, and standards, and national norms for a particular discipline. In particular, GSAC sees no need to absolutely restrict course-only Master's to Ph.D.-granting departments. *************** ATTACHMENT 79/17 UAF FACULTY SENATE #79 APRIL 6, 1998 SUBMITTED BY LEGISLATIVE & FISCAL AFFAIRS Report: Legislative and Fiscal Affairs Committee The committee met for its scheduled meeting on March 2, 1998. In attendance were Scott Deal (chair) Peter Schweitzer, Dan Cole- McCullough, and Eduard Zilberkant. Action items under discussion were the distribution of relevant legislators names to each committee member to write letters, make phone calls, etc., in an effort to keep pressure on the budget issue for the University, and possibilities of committee members getting to Juneau to visit personally with these members. Scott Deal and Eduard Zilberkant will be going to Juneau the first week in April to give a joint recital and to pay visits with our legislators. Scott Deal wrote a letter to the editor of the News Miner (as of yet unpublished) outlining the need for greater involvement on the budget issue on the part of the voting public. Scott Deal and John Craven were among a group of university employees who spoke at an interior delegation teleconference on Wednesday, March 11 on the same issue. Scott Deal received a letter from Pete Kelly regarding funding for the university. The letter states: "Thank you for your recent public opinion messages concerning University funding and deferred maintenance. I too, am very concerned about the University and recognize that funding levels are dangerously low. Although I do not support university budget cuts, I am reluctant at this time to fully endorse the Governor's proposal if those funds are merely re-disbursed from the main campus in Fairbanks to Anchorage, or used to continue unchecked expansion of administration to the detriment of students. I will make every effort to resolve these funding issues with the interests of both Fairbanks and the state wide university system in mind. I appreciate you taking the time to share your concerns with me." This letter reflects the political intelligence that we as a faculty face in dealing with many of the legislators in the State House. Scott Deal's letter to the editor of the News-Miner follows: Over the past few years I have had the opportunity to be engaged in the state legislative process like never before; partly because of my concerns over the budget of the University of Alaska, and partly because the population size of our young state is so small that virtually anyone who cares to can have their voice heard. I consider this accessibility to be one of the distinct advantages of living here. In many larger, more populous states, choked with big money interest groups, the individual can be crowded out by shear, green weight. In our Alaskan society, we have a pronounced degree of self determination that holds promise for a bright future if we use it wisely. Or I should say, if we simply use it. In my discussions with many people, both Democrats and Republicans, legislators and voters, I rarely meet someone who wants to bring the University of Alaska down. Nobody thinks it is a perfect institution, and many have complaints, yet most would like to see it healthy. Many agree with postulations and rhetoric about the value of an Alaskan institution of higher learning; training our future leaders and addressing our unique needs. Yet every spring the state appropriated budget grows smaller and the University as a whole becomes weaker. I don't need to bring up the sad tales and statistics of what the University once was, and what this starvation process is doing: we have all been reading about it for years. What I find interesting is the answer I get when I ask legislators why the University budget is cut year after year. "Our polls show that this is what people want". I have recently had several Democrats call me from Juneau saying, "we aren't hearing from enough supporters of the University"! "Our phones are silent on the issue of the University budget!" This is not to discount the countless hours of effort being generated by various groups who are helping to show legislators in Juneau that Alaska needs an outstanding university, but is making the point that by and large, the general public is remaining silent. Perhaps there are simply more people who don't care about this issue than I would like there to be. I believe that education is one of the most important issues concerning Alaska and the United States at large, but I also realize not everyone sees it the way I do. However, the deterioration of the University is going to affect not only the education of Alaskans, but their pocket books as well. It seems that when one considers what a large employer the University is, and how many non-related businesses are affected directly by the incomes of its employees, that many, many more people would at least get on the Public Opinion Phone Line (452-4448) and let someone know where they stand. Even if only those who benefited financially from the University selfishly got on the phone or wrote a letter, a very big statement would be made that would be hard to ignore. Currently, there are bleak indications that the budget will once again fall dramatically short of the University's needs, and that the Republicans in the Legislature are not even going to match the Governor's proposed UA budget. Sadly, this dark specter is being met with very little resistance. On this issue, no individual or small group gets the blame. Our elected majority in Juneau ran on a platform of trimming the budget. This remains their intention, no matter how much the state has to suffer to arrive at a pre- determined monetary goal within five years. These people work hard, care about Alaska, and most even consider themselves friends of the University (with friends like these...). Democrats would like to paint them as Neanderthals, but this is not always the case. The real culprit is an apathetic, un-engaged public. Republicans have a great point: we need to have our financial house in order. But if those of us who don't agree with the way it is being done stand by and do nothing more than wag our heads, we will have no one to truly look to but our collective selves. We have to do more than vote periodically; we need to communicate in good faith, and often, about how we want our society to be shaped. There is more than one way to resolve the budget issue without slowly bleeding the University to death. There is plenty of money to have a prudently planned budget inside this state and have a funded, world class university. In a state so young and vital, teeming with promise that is the envy of many other places, the hour is upon us to act. For better or worse, the future of the University of Alaska is in the hands of Alaskans. The next meeting for the committee is on Monday, March 30, at 3:30 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Scott Deal *************** ATTACHMENT 79/18 UAF FACULTY SENATE #79 APRIL 6, 1998 SUBMITTED BY AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE CATALOG REVIEW CYCLE Upon request of Chancellor Joan Wadlow, an Ad Hoc Committee on the Catalog Review Cycle was formed by UAF Faculty Senate President John Craven to consider changes to the present Schedule for Formats and Deadlines as printed in the 1997-98 UAF Faculty Senate COURSES AND DEGREE PROCEDURES MANUAL. The purpose of this review was to examine the present dates and to make changes that would enable the University of Alaska Fairbanks to print an updated catalog for use in recruiting efforts in spring semesters. The committee met on Monday, March 23, 1998 and was unanimous on the proposed three motions. Madeline Schutz