I	The meeting was called to order by President Heyne at 1:30 p.m.

		Alexander, B.				Beget, J.
		Bandopadhyay, S. 			Creed, J.
		Bischak, D.  (Abramowicz, K.)		Gerlach, C. 
		Biswas, N.  				Hallsten, D.
		Braddock, J.				Kelley, J.
		Carlson, R.  				Seifert, R.
		Craven, J.				Weingartner, T.
		Curda, L. (Bye, D.)	
		He'bert, M.	
		Heyne, E.				OTHERS PRESENT:
		Illingworth, R.				Ducharme, J.
		Jennings, M.				Gabrielli, R.
		Juday, G.				Gregory, G.
		Layer, P.				Keating, J.
		Lynch, D.				Layral, S.
		McBeath, G. (Naske, C.)  		Wadlow, J.
		McFadden, T.
		McLean-Nelson, D.
		Morgan, J. (Allen, J.)
		Nance, K.
		Perkins, M.
		Pippenger, M.
		RaLonde, R
		Reynolds, J.
		Schatz, M.
		Summerville, S.
		Swazo, N.
		Thomas, D. 
		Wade, C.
		Walworth, J

	Hayes, J. - President, ASUAF (A. Wells)	1 graduate student
	Scholle, M. - President, UAFSC	Alexander, V. - Dean, SFOS
	Hedahl, G. - Dean, CLA
	Tremarello, A - Director, A&R
	B.	The minutes to Meeting #60 (December 4, 1995) were 
		approved as distributed via e-mail.  

	C.	The agenda was approved as distributed via e-mail.

II	Status of Chancellor's Office Actions
		A.	Motions Approved:  
			1.	Motion to adopt a policy statement on 
				"Consensual Sexual (Amorous) Relations 
				between Faculty and Students."
			2.	Motion on American Sign Language
			3.	Motion to adopt a Student Leadership Honors 
				recognition policy 
			4.	Motion to adopt new class schedule.
		B.	Motions Pending:  none

III	Remarks by Chancellor Wadlow:

	Chancellor Wadlow commented on the CRA Executive Dean in 
relation to Board of Regents decisions.  The guiding action to date 
with respect to the Executive Dean of CRA is that of April 1992 
when the Board specifically said that the College will be led by an 
Executive Dean which reports directly to the Chancellor.  This 
relates to Item VIII, Board of Regents policy review.  The issue of 
academic structure is being addressed in the policies and it is 
possible there will be additional provisions in the policies.  Any 
action needs to be consistent with Board of Regents policy.  She 
suggested that we continue to have full communication between her 
and the leadership of the Senate.  She felt that things can be worked 
out by the end of the semester.  

	The Chancellor highlighted certain activities requiring a great 
deal of attention at UAF including enrollment, recruitment, and 
retention.  Enrollment, recruitment and retention have to be one of 
UAF's top priorities.  There is an emphasis on enrollment because 
tuition comprises a significant portion of our budget.  If the revenue 
goes down then there are consequence for the entire university.  In 
Fairbanks, for spring, there is a drop of about 1% in head count, in 
credit hours 2.5%, an increase in full-time students and a decrease 
in part-time students.  The figures for rural Alaska are not expected 
to drop.  The Chancellor has looked at the reports department heads 
have submitted about the recruitment activities.  She is impressed 
with the array.  She has also met with a group of Anchorage leaders 
and discussed how to increase the number of Anchorage students 
attending UAF.  They urged more contact with the high schools.  

	The Enrollment Strategy Board is concentrating on retention.  
One focus was on the importance of advising and taking steps at the 
department level to personalize the advising service provided 

	The Regents had a special meeting last week to review and 
approve a revised schedule for renovation of student housing on 
campus.  The plan will accelerate the renewal of the upper dorms 
and delay some of the improvement in the lower dorms.  There are 
more students living in the upper campus.  There will be more 
revenue sooner because the renovated dorms will have higher rates.  
When we renew a building we will do a job that will last more than 
five or six years.  

	In legislative circles the heat is being turned up on the 
perceived high costs of UAF within the entire UA system.  There may 
be more demand for UAF courses to be delivered throughout the state 
of Alaska.  The excepted attack on UAF costs is a little more intense 
this year and it is coming from some of the powerful leaders in the 
legislature.  We are working on a strategy to address this.

	The Strategic Plan and Goals for the Year 2000--The 
Chancellor is reconvening the groups that developed the strategic 
plan in 1992-93.  John Whitehead is the chair and it will reconvene 
two times.  One to get an update on what has been accomplished 
pursuant to the goals for the year 2000 and then a week later to give 
an analysis and evaluation of how well we have done and what shifts 
they would recommend to be made in emphasis.  

	At the undergraduate level, through the use of private funds, 
next year UAF is able to increase the amount of scholarships 
awarded to potential National Merit Scholars.  There will be a series 
of graduate level fellowships and tuition support, which primarily 
are due to gifts from EAGLE & TOTE.  

	Remarks by Provost Jack Keating:

	Of importance to all faculty include the various policies before 
the Board of Regents. The policies on structure will go to the Board 
of Regents at their February meeting.  The most important set of 
policies are the Faculty Policies.  The first draft has been out for 
review since November.  Comments were due in January to formalize 
a 2nd draft for the Board of Regents February meeting.  The 2nd draft 
is not significantly different.  One issue of concern to UAF, 
instructors being on tenure-track, is now out of the 2nd draft.  There 
will be a period of about three months for comments before they are 
sent to the Board of Regents in June.  

	The second point is what is happening on the salary raises.  
The raise procedure will be discussed over this semester.  Raises 
will be retroactive to January 1, 1996.  The Provost has established 
a central committee, asking all the Deans and Directors for names.  
This committee's main task is to make sure there is communication 
between the units and to help with equity issues.  On the salary 
raises there are two strands.  For a full year it would be 1% given 
for equity, retention, and promotion.  Funding for promotions will 
not be out of this year's amount.  It will be half a percent this year 
because it is a half a year.  So this year will deal almost totally on 
equity issues this year.  Additionally, there is a percent given to 
meritorious performance.  Each of the units will establish their own 
committees of faculty, so that the faculty own the process.  We are 
not dictating a process for each unit, since many have different 
criteria.  The idea is to get as many faculty as possible in the 
review process and then make recommendations back to the 
Provost's office.  The first step is to get everybody's faculty lines 
accurately recorded as we have them in Institutional Research.  

IV	Governance Reports

	A.	ASUAF - A. Wells

	Anita Wells is a member of the ASUAF Senate and was recently 
elected to chair the Academic Affairs Committee.  As part of her job 
she will be giving a report to the UAF Faculty Senate.  One of the 
important things going on with the Student Senate is a new 
committee called the Senate Action Committee.  The purpose is to 
get students at large and student organizations together to solve 
various problems of concern to students on campus.  This would 
include recycling, student apathy, retention, residence halls, food in 
the commons, tuition hikes, program assessment, parking--anything 
that concerns students.  They are trying to get students united 
together, hopefully decrease the student apathy, which will greatly 
increase student retention and pride in UAF.

	The Student Senate is sending two delegates to the Board of 
Regents meeting in Juneau.  They will lobby legislators on student 
concerns and will be asking for a tuition freeze.  

	The Student Recreation Board is lacking a faculty member.  
They would have full voting rights.  The meetings are 7:30-8:30 
Monday mornings, about every other week.  

	Please encourage students in class to vote in the ASUAF 
elections February 20-21.  Last semester the elections were very 

	B.	Staff Council - M. Scholle

	Eric indicated that Marie was the newly elected chair of the 
Statewide System Governance Council.  

	Marie indicated at the December Staff Council meeting Mr. 
Moyer came to discuss how the University fits into the Knowles 
administration.  The discussion was less than successful and 
prompted a three-page letter from the staff to Governor Knowles.  
Recently, Marie has been notified that she has a meeting with the Lt. 
Governor on February 15th.  Marie hopes to also have representatives 
from the faculty and students to meet with the Lt. Governor and to 
discuss with her some of the issue that are important to the 
University.  Governance representatives will also be talking with 
various legislators including the House Finance Committee members.  
They will be lobbying hard for issues pertaining to the University as 
a whole.  This year all the Staff Alliance representatives from all 
the MAUs will be meeting in Juneau and will have a big face-to-face 
meeting.  They will be lobbying the legislature as UA, not UAF, not 
UAA, not UAS.  They will be bringing the concerns of the entire 
university, so will be there on a forceful front.  The Staff Alliance 
will be meeting with the Faculty Alliance and the Student Network 
for a convocation with Chancellor Lind to discuss the issues and 
strategies so that when we go to the legislature everybody will be 
on the same page.  

	C.	President's Report - E. Heyne

	Eric's report was attached to the Senate agenda.  He recently 
attended the AAHE meeting where he was immersed in the 
nationwide perspective on issues that UAF is going through.  He 
hopes to be a resource, to help faculty understand the changes, and 
provide a sounding board for discussion.  

	Eric also indicated that the Student Recreation Center Board 
needs a faculty representative.  If you are interested or know 
someone who is willing to serve, please let us know.  This voice on 
the SRC Board is the faculty opportunity to provide input.  We also 
need nominations for President-Elect at our next meeting.

	D.	Faculty Alliance Report - D. Lynch

	Don highlighted his written reports on the Faculty Alliance, 
Provost Council, and Systems Governance meetings.  These were 
distributed as a Senate Handout as follows.

	Report on Faculty Alliance meeting of January 26, 1996--The 
Faculty Alliance, composed of three representatives from each 
Campus Senate, considered comments which had been submitted 
regarding Academic Policies.  The Alliance discussed these 
comments, particularly the Quimby report, J. McBeath's letter, and 
the letter by McNutt, Jeffries, Lingle, and Lummerzheim to Akosofu.  
In general, the comments propose a five year rather than three year 
intense post tenure review and object to denying research faculty 
tenure.  There is also concern over the provision that Chancellors in 
making tenure and retention decisions may use other relevant 
sources of information.  

	The Juneau and Anchorage Senates are considering taking 
Senate positions on the new Academic Policies.  The Alliance will 
met in Juneau February 14 in conjunction with the Regents and will 
attempt to meet important legislators.  The issue of which 
legislators to meet was left open.

	Report on Provost Councils' meeting of January 10, 1996--
Information on faculty salaries has been provided to Deans who are 
to check the data for accuracy and add time in grade.  These are to be 
used for determine salary equity under the guidance of faculty 
committees to be formed within each unit.  The Provost will form an 
overall Faculty review group for the Campus.  Faculty reviews for 
raises should consider the members entire career plus one year.  
Deans need to watch workload assignments rather carefully and 
contracts should come with a workload statement.

	Presentation by BANNER representatives suggest the Student 
Information System, which includes faculty workloads, may be 
operational within two years.  Cliff Lando is UAF's representative on 
these matters and comments should be directed to him.  To make 
this system really cost effective will require that each faculty 
member have a "486" computer.

	Presentation by Shari Jordan described the forty-five member 
Northern Alaska Spatial Data Users  group associated with UAF's 
Image Processing and Geographic Information System Laboratory.

	Pre-Senate Meeting with Chancellor and Provost, January 15, 
1996--The Accreditation Team recommends a report on UAF's 
accomplishments in meeting the six goals of the UAF Strategic Plan.  
The Senate may want to help in this report process.

	Systems Governance Meeting, January 19, 1996--Discussed the 
proposed reorganization of the Anchorage Campus.  Anchorage is 
concerned solely with salary equity questions and will not 
implement the merit pay raise system for three years.  

	The Juneau Faculty Senate is dealing with the Regents' salary 
recommendations and has a plan regarding salary equity and 
restructuring of academic units.  Juneau wishes to lobby for a new 
cafeteria.  Appropriate $1,500 from its funds for using WEB Server.

	There was considerable discussion as to whether or not the 
modification to the staff salary schedule passed by the Regents in 
August had followed the proper procedures for faculty consultation.  
Statewide argued that it had, faculty disagreed.  Discussed 
arrangements for meeting legislators in Juneau, February 15-16, 

	Don also put together Highlights of Regents' Policies 
Concerning Faculty.  This Handout is included under Agenda Item VIII, 
A.  It includes comments on Collection One and Two and comments on 
the 1st draft of Collection Three.  What they have done is to divide 
the new program plan and reorganization into three parts.  The 
documents are lengthy and have been prepared by a committee at the 
statewide level.  The normal procedure is to circulate them to the 
Board of Regents and let people have whatever input they want.  The 
Senates in both Juneau and Anchorage are considering taking 
positions on these documents.  We are not asked as a Senate to take 
a position, what they are asking for is public comments.   

V	Public Comments/Questions - none

VI	New Business

	A.	Motion to approve the BFA in Theatre, submitted by 
Curricular Affairs

	Dana Thomas presented the motion and indicated that his 
committee had discussed the proposal.  Dana indicated that Theatre 
ranked in the bottom 10% in terms of the number of majors, the 
number of graduates, and the number of student credit hours 
produced.  There are two ways of looking at this proposal.  One, this 
is an opportunity to turn some of that around, and encourage people 
to major that are not now because this new major is a more 
standard avenue to graduate study in theatre.  The second point of 
view is that we are encouraging a program that has not been 
producing.  Dana also indicated that all the courses exist and that 
the program is a matter of rearranging them.  If the courses are 
already offered, the faculty already there, and the infrastructure 
already there, it's effectively a no-cost proposal.  Dean Hedahl 
indicated that the students would take more credits in Theatre, but 
those courses are already offered.  They would have a B.F.A. which is 
a major without a minor.  The courses are already part of the regular 
rotation.  The motion passed 18 yes, 5 nays, and 4 abstained.


The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve the BFA in Theatre.

	EFFECTIVE:	Upon Board of Regents' Approval

	RATIONALE:	See full program proposal on file in the 
		Governance Office, 312 Signers' Hall.



The Bachelor of Fine Arts is a professionally oriented degree 
designed to prepare students for careers in theatrical design.  This 
degree is also the usual prerequisite for graduate studies in theatre.  
The B.F.A. in Theatrical Design's main objective is to give a more 
thorough and concentrated focus into the various methods, bases, 
and applications of all theatrical design.

Theatre UAF has unique opportunities open for our design students.  
Our audience counts/house records are steadily growing; interest is 
rising and our program is expanding.  Through a portfolio/interview 
enrollment, the B.F.A. program presented here will aid in drawing in 
new students as well as in retaining those we have due to the larger 
demand of graduate schools requiring a B.F.A. of their applicants.

Resources and equipment needs will barely be effected; in fact, in 
the long run, design faculty will be able to take on a more 
supervisory role in the design process; thereby allowing them more 
time to teach more classes.

This program will aid the department's productions better, will 
supply a more qualified "labor force" for the mounting of 
departmental productions, and will aid the community by offering 
them (Fairbanks Drama Association, Fairbanks Light Opera Theatre, 
etc.) a variety of better-trained designers willing to work in 
exchange for resume credits.

In conclusion, I feel that because all the pieces are already in place 
for the B.F.A. program in Theatre, we should take advantage of it and 
add the program to attract more students into our already growing 


	B.	Motion to approve the deletion of the M.Ed. in College 
Student Personnel Administration, submitted by Graduate Curricular 

	Robert Carlson indicated that this request was submitted by 
the school because it has not been offered recently and they wanted 
to get it off the books.  The motion passed without opposition.


The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve the deletion of the M.Ed. in 
College Student Personnel Administration.

	EFFECTIVE:	Upon Board of Regents' Approval

	RATIONALE:	See full program proposal on file in the 
		Governance Office, 312 Signers' Hall.




	M.Ed. - College Student Personnel Administration

Identification of Program:

	This program is designed to train educators to be able to 
function in student service positions in higher education.  This 
training would include specifically:  history, philosophy, and 
contemporary issues in higher education; management concepts; 
principles of educational psychology, measurement, and research, 
and supervised laboratory experiences in college student personnel 

Reasons for Requesting Deletion of Program:

	This program has not been available for several years and has 
no students enrolled  The people who developed this program 
sequence are no longer at the university, and there is no intent to 
revive the degree sequence.


	C.	Motion to amend the guidelines for Faculty Role in the 
Evaluation of Administrators, submitted by Faculty Appeals & 

	Eric indicated that he had talked with Diane Bischak who was 
not able to attend the Senate meeting.  This motion attempts to get 
the Executive Dean listed in the evaluation of administrators in the 
right place.  Eric felt that the Senate should defer this until we get 
the final Regents' decision on what these positions will be called.  
The Executive Dean presumably will not be evaluated for a few 
years, there is no hurry.  The Senate moved to table the motion.


The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the guidelines for Faculty 
Role in the Evaluation of Administrators endorsed at the Faculty 
Senate Meeting #23 on December 17, 1990 as indicated below.  

	EFFECTIVE:	Immediately

	RATIONALE:	These amendments delete from the list of 
		administrators to be evaluated those administrative 
		positions that no longer exist and add existing 
		administrative positions.


[[   ]] =  Deletion
CAPS  =  Addition


1.	All faculty in a given administrative unit will have the 
opportunity to provide anonymous written input into the evaluation 
of their EXECUTIVE DEAN, dean or director, associate dean or 
director, deputy director, and department head.  In small units, 
interviews with individual faculty members may also be appropriate.

2.	A representative sample of faculty will be asked to provide 
written input into the evaluation of the [[Vice Chancellor for 
Academic Affairs and the Vice Chancellor for Research]] PROVOST.  
The Faculty Senate and its leadership will be included in this 
sample, as well as any ad hoc groups and individuals who have 
worked closely with the administrators during the time covered by 
the evaluation.

3.	In each evaluation cycle, a uniform procedure will be used in 
all academic units to obtain faculty input.

4.	The procedure for evaluation of the Chancellor is codified in 
Board of Regents' policy.  The Faculty Senate urges the Regents 
and the President to consult with faculty as a crucial part of this 

5.	The administrative characteristics that faculty will have 
the opportunity to comment upon will include at least the 

	Administrative Tasks
		Building and maintaining excellence
		Resource allocation

		Maintenance of strong faculty morale
		Problem resolution
		Delegation of duties to appropriate colleagues
		Building a team
		Providing a means to involve department heads and other 
			faculty in decisionmaking
		Skills as a mediator between faculty and 
			General leadership abilities

		Academic Contributions 

		General Comments


	D.	Motions to amend Grade Appeals Policy, submitted by 
Curricular Affairs

	Dana Thomas indicated there were two motions, one from 
Curricular Affairs and one by Faculty Appeals & Oversight.  Dana 
addressed the Curricular Affairs motion and indicated that it was 
largely a housekeeping issue.  They wanted to address the faculty 
member being the department head or dean.  They also had not dealt 
with the NB grade.  So these changes take care of issues that arose.  
Maynard Perkins submitted an amendment to the definition of 
Department Head to include Campus Directors for courses whose 
faculty members are under the College of Rural Alaska.  The 
amendment passed with one nay.  The motion then passed 

MOTION PASSED (unanimous)

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the UAF Grade Appeals 
Policy as indicated below.

	EFFECTIVE:	Immediately

	RATIONALE:	The existing appeals policy defines the letter 
grades A, B, C, D, F and Pass as being subject to appeal, while the I 
and NB are explicitly exempted.  However, as the NB is a permanent 
grade, it too must be subject to appeal.  It is recommended that 
Paragraph II.A. be revised.

	The policy does not provide a course of action for the case in 
which an instructor whose grade is being appealed is no longer an 
employee of the university but who is willing to participate in the 
appeals procedure.  It is recommended that Paragraph III.A.5.c. be 

	It appears that grade appeals committees are not always 
making certain that the student's request for a review is valid.  The 
committee recommends that the first sentence of Paragraph III.B.4.c 
be revised.

	The present policy does not identify a clear course of action 
for cases in which the instructor is either the dean or the 
department head.  It is recommended that the present Paragraphs 
III.B.3-6 be renumbered III.B.4-7, and that a new Paragraph III.B.3 
be inserted.


[[   ]] = Deletions
CAPS = Additions


I.	Introduction

The University of Alaska is committed to the ideal of academic 
freedom and so recognizes that the  assignment of grades is a 
faculty responsibility.  Therefore, the University administration 
shall not influence or affect an assigned grade or the review of an 
assigned grade.

The following procedures are designed to provide a means for 
students to seek review of final course grades alleged to be 
arbitrary and capricious.  Before taking formal action, a student 
must attempt to resolve the issue informally with the instructor of 
the course.  A student who files  a written request for review under 
the following procedures shall be expected to abide by the final 
disposition of the review, as provided below, and may not seek 
further review of the matter under any other procedure within the 

II.	Definitions

A.	A "grade" refers to FINAL letter grades A, B, C, D, F, NB and 
Pass.  The [[NB (no basis) and]] I (incomplete) [[designators are not 
grades and, therefore, are]] DESIGNATES A TEMPORARY GRADE, NOT A 
FINAL GRADE, SO IT IS not subject to appeal.

B.	For the purpose of this procedure, "arbitrary and capricious" 
grading means:

	1.	the assignment of a course grade to a student on some 
	basis other than performance in the course, or

	2.	the assignment of a course grade to a student by 
	resorting to standards different from those which were 
	applied to other students in that course, or

	3.	the assignment of a course grade by a substantial, 
	unreasonable and unannounced departure from the instructor's 
	previously articulated standards.

C.	"Grading errors" denotes errors in the calculation of grades 
rather than errors in judgment.

D.	All references to duration in "days" refers to university 
working days, which exclude weekends, holidays and days in which 
the university is officially closed.

E.	"Department head" for the purposes of this policy denotes the 
administrative head of the academic unit offering the course (e.g., 
head, chair or coordinator of an academic department, OR THE 

III.	Procedures

A.	Errors by an instructor in determining and recording a grade or 
by the university staff in transcribing the grade are sources of error 
that can be readily corrected through the student's prompt attention 
following the normal change of grade procedure.

	1.	It is a student's obligation to notify the instructor of any 
possible error immediately by the most direct means available.  If 
this is through an oral conversation and/or the issue is not 
immediately resolved, it is the student's responsibility to provide 
the instructor with a signed, written request for review of the 
grade, with a copy to the unit department head and the dean of the 
college or school in which the course was offered.

	2.	Notification must be received by the instructor and/or 
department head within 20 days from the first day of instruction of 
the next regular semester (i.e., fall semester for grade issued at the 
end of the previous spring semester or summer session; spring 
semester for grade issued at the end of the previous fall semester).

	3.	The instructor is responsible for notifying the student in 
writing of his or her final judgment concerning the grade in question 
within 10 days of receipt of the request, and for promptly 
submitting the appropriate change of grade form to the Director of 
Admissions and Records if an error occurred.

	4.	If the student does not receive a response from the 
instructor or the unit department head by the required deadline, the 
student must seek the assistance of the dean of the college or 
school in which the course was offered.

	5.	If the instructor is no longer an employee of the 
university or is otherwise unavailable, the student must bring the 
matter to the attention of the unit department head who will make 
every effort to contact the instructor.

		a.	If the instructor can not be contacted but course 
records are available, the department head may correct a grading 
error through the regular change of grade process on behalf of the 

		b.	If the instructor can not be contacted and course 
records are either unavailable or indecisive, the student may request 
a review following the procedure outlined below.


	6.	There may be extenuating circumstances when the 
deadlines cannot be met due to illness, mail disruption, or other 
situations over which the student may have no control.  In such a 
case, upon request from the student, the dean of students, after 
review of supporting documentation provided by the student, may 
recommend to the grade appeals committee that the deadlines be 
adjusted accordingly.  An extension of the deadline will be limited 
to one semester but every effort should be made to complete the 
appeal process within the current semester. 

B.	If no such error occurred, the remaining option is by review for 
alleged arbitrary and capricious grading, or for instances where the 
course instructor is unavailable and satisfaction is not forthcoming 
from the appropriate department head.

	1.	This review is initiated by the student through a signed, 
written request to the department head with a copy to the dean of 
the college or school in which the course was offered.  

		a.	The student's request for review may be submitted 
using university forms specifically designed for this purpose and 
available at the Admissions and Records Office.

		b.	By submitting a request for a review, the student 
acknowledges that no additional mechanisms exist within the 
university for the review of the grade, and that the university's 
administration can not influence or affect the outcome of the 

		c.	The request for a review must be received no later 
than 45 days after the first day of instruction in the next regular 
semester (i.e., fall semester for grade issued at the end of the 
previous spring semester or summer session; spring semester for 
grade issued at the end of the previous fall semester).

		d.	The request must detail the basis for the allegation 
that a grade was improper and the result of arbitrary and capricious 
grading and must present the relevant evidence.

	2.	It is the responsibility of the department head to 
formally notify both the instructor who issued the grade and the 
dean of the unit's college or school that a request for a review of 
grade has been received.


	4.[[3.]]	The dean will appoint a 5 member review 
committee composed of the following:

		a.	One tenure-track faculty member from the 
academic unit in which the course was offered (other than the 
instructor of the course).

		b.	Two tenure-track faculty members from within the 
college or school but outside of the unit in which the course was 

		c.	One tenure track faculty member from outside the 
college or school in which the course was offered.

		d.	At the option of the student whose grade is being 
reviewed, the fifth member to be appointed by the dean will be a 
student or another tenure track faculty member outside the college 
or school in which the course was offered.

		e.	The campus judicial officer or his/her designee 
shall serve as a nonvoting facilitator for grade appeals hearings.  
This individual shall serve in an advisory role to help preserve 
consistent hearing protocol and records.

	5.[[4.]]	The committee must meet within 10 days of 
receipt of the student's request.

		a.	During this and any subsequent meetings, all 
parties involved shall protect the confidentiality of the matter 
according to the provisions of the Family Educational Rights and 
Privacy Act (FERPA) and any other applicable federal, state or 
university policies.

		b.	Throughout the proceedings, the committee will 
encourage a mutually agreeable resolution.

meeting[[,]] IS FOR the committee [[will]] TO rule on the validity of 
the student's request.  Grounds for dismissal of the request for 
review are:

			1)	This is not the first properly prepared 
request for appeal of the particular grade.

			2)	The actions of the instructor do not 
constitute arbitrary and capricious grading, as defined herein.

			3)	The request was not made within the policy 

			4)	The student has not taken prior action to 
resolve the grade conflict with the instructor, as described under 
section III, A.

		d.	In the event that the committee votes to dismiss 
the request, a written notice of dismissal must be forwarded to the 
student, instructor, department head and dean within five days of 
the decision, and will state clearly the reasoning for the dismissal 
of the request.

	6.[[5.]]	Acceptance for consideration of the student's 
request will result in the following:

		a.	A request for and receipt of a formal response from 
the instructor to the student's allegation.

		b.	A second meeting scheduled to meet within 10 days 
of the decision to review the request.

			1)	The student and instructor will be invited to 
attend the meeting.

			2)	The meeting will be closed to outside 
participation, and neither the student nor instructor may be 
accompanied by an advocate or representative.  Other matters of 
format  will be announced in advance.

			3)	The proceedings will be tape recorded and the 
tapes will be stored with the campus Judicial Officer.

			4)	The meeting must be informal, non-
confrontational and fact-finding, where both the student and 
instructor may provide additional relevant and useful information 
and can provide clarification of facts for materials previously 

	7.[[6.]]	The final decision of the committee will be made in 
private by a majority vote.

		a.	The committee is not authorized to award a grade 
(letter or pass/fail) or take any action with regard to the instructor.

		b.	Actions which the committee can take if it accepts 
the student's allegation of arbitrary and capricious grading must be 
directed towards a fair and just resolution, and may include, but are 
not limited to, the following:

			1)	direct the instructor to grade again the 
student's work under the supervision of the department head,

			2)	direct the instructor to administer a new 
final examination and/or paper in the course,

			3)	direct a change of the student's registration 
status (i.e., withdrawn, audit, dropped) in the course.

		c.	A formal, written report of the decision must be 
forwarded to the student, instructor, department head, dean and 
Director of Admissions and Records within five days of the meeting.

		d.	The decision of the committee is final.


	Motion to amend Grade Appeals Policy, submitted by Faculty 
Appeals & Oversight

	There was discussion on combining this motion with the 
previous motion from Curricular Affairs.  Because it came from a 
different committee it was considered separately.  The purpose of 
this motion was to dovetail the Faculty Appeals & Oversight 
Committee with the Grade Appeals process.   Dana Thomas opposed 
the motion because it was a student based appeal and there was a 
concern by his committee on the availability of faculty members 
especially in the summer months.  An amendment adding the option 
"if available" passed without objection.  The motion then passed 
without opposition.   Janice Reynolds pointed out that students need 
to be aware that while there is a grade appealsprocess, no matter 
what the committee decides, the grade may not always be changed.  
The grade appeals process has limited ramifications.  


The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the UAF Grade Appeals 
Policy III. B. 3. as indicated below.  

	EFFECTIVE:	Immediately

	RATIONALE:	Currently, the UAF Grade Appeals Policy does 
		not specify how the faculty members of grade appeals 
		review committees will be selected.  The Faculty 
		Appeals and Oversight Committee functions as an appeal 
		body for issues of faculty prerogative, and thus grade 
		appeals are included in its mandate.  This motion 
		requires that the unit dean select two of the four faculty 
		members appointed to any grade appeals review 
		committee from among the members of the Faculty 
		Appeals and Oversight Committee.  If the student 
		requests that the fifth member be a faculty member, the 
		unit dean will also select that faculty member from the 
		Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee.  The unit dean 
		will appoint the other two faculty members on a 
		committee at his or her discretion.


CAPS = addition


III.	Procedures

B. 3.  The dean will appoint a 5 member review committee composed 
of the following:

	a.	One tenure-track faculty member from the academic unit 
in which the course was offered (other than the instructor of the 

	b.	Two tenure-track faculty members from within the 
college or school but outside of the unit in which the course was 

	c.	One tenure track faculty member from outside the 
college or school in which the course was offered.  IF AVAILABLE, 

	d.	At the option of the student whose grade is being 
reviewed, the fifth member to be appointed by the dean will be a 
student or another tenure track faculty member outside the college 
or school in which the course was offered.  IF THE FIFTH MEMBER IS 

	e.	The campus judicial officer or his/her designee shall 
serve as a nonvoting facilitator for grade appeals hearings.  This 
individual shall serve in an advisory role to help preserve consistent 
hearing protocol and records.


VII	Committee Reports 


The Curricular Affairs Committee report was attached to the agenda.  
Dana indicated that the Curricular Affairs committee would be 
meeting again on Thursday, February 8th and 22nd.  Items to be 
discussed include the Justice program admissions request and the 
AHEAD program.  Glenn Juday will chair the February 8th meeting.  

	B.	FACULTY AFFAIRS - Barbara Alexander

Barbara indicated that the two issues are more as a follow up than 
needing further action.  The committee is very concerned about 
policy reviews.  At their December 11th meeting the committee 
looked again at the motion passed by the Senate at the December 4th 
meeting pertaining to censure.  Policy changes under way, policies 
pending and action to be taken don't seem to take into account that 
existing policies should be respected.  So in view of expecting 
something, the resolution is meant for the record on the question of 
the role of the Senate.  Actions taken as well as well as follow up 
are of great significance.  

The second issue raised is compensation review and implementation.  
The main reason for a review and follow up is the concern to stay on 
record has to do with the current mandate to get committee that 
will deal with the compensation issue.  Again the intent of the 
committee's stressing the question here of issues of faculty 
governance at large.  They take their responsibilities to deal with 
currently proposed reviews or solutions and there seems to be a 
conflict.  They are looking in the long run, at the way in which our 
resolutions have been acted upon.  

Eric stated that we have tried hard to let the Regents know our 
feelings.  We have the issue of communication between faculty and 
the Regents' being discussed in a committee now.  We have made it 
clear both individually and collectively that we think the way they 
handled the compensation policy was a disgrace.  The Provost 
indicated that the Regents want to see their policy work for one 

There was further discussion on the issue of compensation and the 
Senate's previous resolution of censure.  

Eric formed an Ad Hoc Committee on Revising UAF Rules & 
Procedures to accommodate the existing administrative positions.  
Don Lynch, Norman Swazo, Ron Illingworth and Maynard Perkins will 
be on this committee.  

The following Faculty Affairs report was submitted as a handout at 
the Faculty Senate meeting by Barbara Alexander.  

"Collections" I, II, III:  Policy Reviews and Schedule

The Faculty Affairs Committee met twice since the last Senate 
meeting, on Dec. 11 and Jan. 29 and has continued the debate on 
currently proposed policy reviews and changes.  Committee members 
continue to urge ALL UA FACULTY to respond to the Regents' and the 
Administration's request for faculty recommendations!!!  Committee 
members are particularly interested in changes of those policies 
affecting tenure and promotion review, workload, unit criteria 
(0X.01.xx and 0X.02.xx).

Policies for Hiring of Administrators Supervising Faculty


WHEREAS the Faculty Senate passed a motion of censure of 
	Chancellor Joan Wadlow on Dec. 4, 1995; and,

WHEREAS Chancellor Wadlow has not formally responded to the 
	Senate to said motion; and,

WHEREAS the issue of search procedures for administrative 
	positions remains unresolved;

THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Faculty Senate requests that 
	Chancellor Wadlow (a) provide the Senate with a formal 
	response (written or oral) to the Dec. 4 Senate vote of censure; 
	and (b) that she and the Senate come to agreement on the search 
	procedure for appointments of any administrative officer with 
	line authority appointed by the Chancellor and whose primary 
	responsibility is supervision of faculty.

Compensation Review and Implementation

Several members of the committee reported recent requests from 
College and/or Division Administrators soliciting nominations for ad 
hoc committees of faculty on implementation of new compensation 
policy.  The Faculty Affairs Committee requests a roll call vote to 
determine whether the Senate sustains its prior resolution on 
compensation from Sept. 18, 1995.


No report was given.


The Graduate Curricular Affairs Committee is primarily a reactive 
one which meets to consider various proposals.  They are considering 
three issues:  1) course compression for graduate courses;  2) 
differention of 400/600 level courses; and 3) consideration for who 
takes graduate courses and should their be a prerequisite.  


The Developmental Studies Committee will meet on February 6, 


No report was available.

			Rich Seifert

No report was available.


They are working on items to be discussed with legislators in 
Juneau.   The administrations priorities are fixed costs and the 
salary raise issue.  The Committee encourages all faculty to review 
the Board of Regents' policy changes.  

VIII	Discussion Items

	A.	Board of Regents Policy Revisions

The Senate moved to go into Committee of the Whole for the 
purposes of discussion of the Board of Regents policy & regulations 

Eric indicated that the Senate had a lot of input into the Grievance 
Policy and Collection 1.  The Senate needs to look at Collection 3 
closely.  Formal Governance review for Collection 3 is from February 
26 to May 8.  This is a skeleton policy for the whole system, meant 
to be supplemented by specifics at each MAU.  This is intended to be 
vary broad and plain to accommodate all MAU's. 

Discussion by the Committee of the Whole included faculty 
evaluation and workloads, tenure for instructors, tenure and appeals 
process, and post-tenure review.  

Following are the comments presented to the Senate as a Handout 
from Don Lynch.

[based on draft 1]


The Regent's have divided policies affecting faculty into three 
groups called Collections One, Two, and Three.  Collections One and 
Two have essentially been approved as has the new Grievance Policy, 
although final confirmation, as far as I know, has not yet occurred.  
Collection Three is currently under review by our Faculty Affairs 

	Title:	Academic and Faculty Policy Review
Regent's Action:	Collection 1 - February 16, 1996
			Collection 2 - April 19, 1996
			Collection 3 - June 7, 1996

The policy coordinator is Nanne Myers, Assistant Vice President for 
Academic Affairs.

Purpose of these academic policies: 
	"A firm direction has been taken in these revisions toward 
more collaboration between separately accredited components of the 
University of Alaska." (Cover letter page 1)  The changes are 
intended to:
	"Redirect academic policies to enhance and support student 
access to resources of all MAUs so that their educational goals may 
be better met
	"Emphasize and support the accountability of the President for 
the overall academic program...."  (Cover letter page 1)

Budgetary implications:
	a.	Promotion of more effective use of academic resources.
	b.	Reallocation of funds to support distance delivery and 
		innovation in non-classroom instructional methods.
	c.	Reallocation of funds in support of the community 
		college mission.
	d.	More expenditures on inter-MAU communication.  
		(Cover letter page 2)


Highlights from Collection 1:  The title Instructor is made an 
academic rank and one holding this rank can be considered for tenure.  
Those holding special ranks, including Research (employed primarily 
to conduct research and supported primarily by research funds) are 
not entitled to consideration for tenure (page 5).  

"...each MAU will have the responsibility of serving both local and 
statewide constituencies.  Each MAU will contribute to the 
integrated instructional program of the University of Alaska..."  (p. 
15, Policy 10.04.01).  Such collaboration will include sharing 
resources, establishing common curricula, coordinating planning, and 
"collaboration among units in teaching, research and public 
service..." (p. 15).

Both minima and maxima credits are established for various degrees 
(p. 16).  A common core curriculum and credit transfer policy is 
established for all units of the University (p. 18, 19).


Measurement of Academic Effectiveness

"...each MAU will regularly undertake studies of the impact of its 
academic programs on its students and graduates.  MAUs will 
describe achievements expected of their students and adopt reliable 
procedures for assessing those achievements.  Assessment practices 
will be coordinated among MAUs.  An annual report on the 
implementation of assessment practices will be provided to the 
Board of Regents.  Assessment outcomes will be used in program and 
institutional planning." (p. 1, Policy 10.06.02)


Theses which cannot be published because they contain proprietary 
or classified information will not be accepted as satisfying degree 
requirements (p. 2, 3).

Inventions and patents based on use of University facilities by 
faculty, staff and students will be assigned to the University of 
Alaska (p. 4, Policy 10.07.05).  "The University...will not assert 
ownership of copyrightable materials produced by faculty members 
as a part of their normal teaching and scholarly activities."  
Copyright ownership of all materials developed from funded 
research will be the property of the University or in terms of the 
research contract (p. 5).

The University will implement programs of equal educational 
opportunity (p. 7-8).  Textbooks, etc., must avoid materials which 
"reflect bias towards any person or group...based on their sex or 
minority status."  (p. 9)

Authorizes athletic programs (p. 9-13).

University regulations regarding Patents authorize the appointment 
of a Director of Intellectual Property and Licensing and an 
Intellectual Property Committee to evaluate patents, royalties, etc., 
and make recommendations to the President (p. 15-22, Regulation 

"The university will not assert ownership of copyrightable materials 
produced by faculty members as part of their normal teaching and 
scholarly activities at the university and which do not result from 
project [sic] specifically funded in whole or in part by the university 
or by a sponsor of the university." (p. 20-21, Regulation 10.07.05, D, 
2, a).

Comment:  This appears to beg the question of who owns the 
copyrights, who obtains the royalties from courses developed in part 
by University funds but based on faculty resources, e.g. courses 
placed on CD Rom discs, television, etc.


These are presently under revision based on comments from the 
Statewide Academic Council.

"Titles of instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, and 
professor will be used to denote rank of tenured faculty."  (p. 1)  
"Notification of the year of mandatory/tenure/review will be made 
in the contract for initial appointment." (p. 2)  "Time spent in a non-
tenure track term appointment will not count in the calculation of 
the time for mandatory review for tenure..." (p. 3)  "Non-tenure track 
appointments may be made for a period up to but not longer than 
three years..." (p. 3)  Other academic titles which may be used, but do 
not qualify for tenure include those with the terms affiliate, 
visiting, research, and clinical. (p. 4)

Adjunct faculty will be appointed to teach on a per course basis not 
to exceed fifteen credit hours during an academic year. (p.5)


Purpose of evaluation is to assess the degree to which the individual 
has met professional obligations, has continued professional 
development, prospects for continued development, and possible 
changes in emphasis needed for continued "growth." (p. 8)

Chancellor's make decisions regarding promotion of tenure track 
faculty based on recommendations of faculty, administrators, and 
other relevant sources (p. 10, Policy 0X.01.03.C.1).

Tenure tract instructors and assistant professors will be reviewed 
for tenure no later than the seventh consecutive year of service. (p. 


"Tenured faculty members will be evaluated intensively at least 
every three years....  Once a faculty member receives an 
unsatisfactory evaluation, annual evaluations will take place until 
the faculty member receives a satisfactory evaluation.  If 
evaluations are unsatisfactory for three years, grounds exist for 
termination for cause." (p. 17, Policy 0X.01.06)

Discontinuance of Program

"When a decision is made to discontinue a program...a good faith 
effort will be made to place tenured faculty in another program 
where appropriate." (p. 19)  "Should the program be reactivated 
within two years, previously tenured faculty members will be 
invited to return..." (p. 20)  Faculty member when offered the 
opportunity to return, has thirty days in which to respond. (p. 20)

"When a decision is made to reduce a program a good faith effort 
will be made to retain tenured faculty in preference to non-tenured 
faculty, or to place tenured faculty in another program where 
appropriate." (p. 20)

"Following a declaration of financial exigency according to Regents 
Policy, University Regulations, and MAU rules and procedures, 
faculty members are entitled to a minimum of sixty calendar days 
notice in advance of the cessation of their employment." (p. 21)

Sabbatical leave policies follow.


These policies, as I interpret them, are designed to provide 
flexibility in academic programs so that changes can be 
accommodated by making programs statewide, using distance 
delivery techniques, transferring faculty from one program to 
another, discontinuing programs, establishing easy transfers or core 
curricula from one campus to another, and for eliminating tenured 
faculty with unfavorable post tenure reviews.  In addition, the 
policies also vest authority in the Statewide Administration for 
reporting on academic achievements or failures in order to 
reallocate resources from one branch or program to another, assess 
where the greatest needs are for faculty and programs and where 
they do not exist, and to determine the university's interests in 
copyrights, patents, and royalties.  Flexibility in academic programs 
under the supervision of the Statewide President seems to be the 

IX	Members' Comments/Questions

John Craven indicated that the chairs of all committees need to 
notify the Governance Office of meetings.  The Governance Office 
then distributes Public Meeting Notices.

X	Adjournment

	The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m.

	Tapes of this Faculty Senate meeting are in the Governance Office, 
	312 Signers' Hall if anyone wishes to listen to the complete tapes. 

	Submitted by Sheri Layral, Faculty Senate Secretary.