MINUTES UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #67 MONDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 1996 WOOD CENTER BALLROOMI The meeting was called to order by President Lynch at 1:35 p.m. A. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Bandopadhyay, S. Finney, B. Barnhardt, C. RaLonde, R Barry, R. Spell, D. Beget, J. Walworth, J. Boone, R. Braddock, J. Cooper, B. OTHERS PRESENT: Craven, J. Bischak, D. Creed, J. Brown, J. Curda, L. Crosby, A. Fast, P. Croskrey, W. Gavlak, R. Gabrielli, R. Kelley, J. Gregory, G. Lynch, D. Jennings, M. Maginnis, T. Layral, S. McBeath, G. (C. Naske) Martin, W. McFadden, T. Sandstede, H. McLean-Nelson, D. Wadlow, J. Mortensen, B. Nance, K. Nielsen, H. Perkins, M. Pippenger, M. Reynolds, J. Robinson, T. Ruess, D. Schatz, M. Schweitzer, P. Seifert, R. Swazo, N. Wade, C. (D. Bye) Weber, J. NON-VOTING MEMBERS PRESENT: NON-VOTING MEMBERS ABSENT: Wheeler, C. - President, ASUAF 1 graduate student Pierce, R. - President, UAFSC Alexander, V. - Dean, SFOS Tremarello, A - Registrar Hedahl, G. - Dean, CLA B. The minutes to Meeting #66 (October 14, 1996) were approved as distributed via e-mail. C. The agenda was amended to add New Business, Item G. - Motion on course compression, submitted by Curricular Affairs. II Status of Chancellor's Office Actions A. Motions approved: 1. Motion to approve the AAS in Apprenticeship Technology. 2. Motion to amend the Associate of Arts requirements. B. Motions pending: none III Comments from Chancellor Wadlow - The Chancellor commented on the actions of the Senate. She believes the issues that are being addressed by the Faculty Senate this year are truly significant and important ones for the quality of the institution. The Chancellor encourages this to continue and urges the Senate to move as quickly as possible. The Chancellor will be forwarding 11 proposals totaling nearly $1 million to the President for his reallocation fund (UAF contributed slightly over 1/2 million). UAF submitted slightly more than half of the proposals that came forward. The themes are clear either expanded teaching programs or enriched teaching opportunities for UAF. Secondly, there are proposals that involve either UAA or UAS jointly with department or programs here at UAF. There are a couple of proposals of substance, one in computing which fits in well with what the Chancellor hears from students. Every single student group that the Chancellor has met with in the past few weeks has been concerned about computing, open lab access, and upgrading of computing and repair. Secondly, distance delivery is another theme that is in the proposals. The New Miner recently published a photo of UAF's advanced instrumentation laboratory. There was a very nice dedication in connection with the Friday afternoon seminar. The occasion was to highlight one of the instruments that UAF acquired over the past several months from the private sector. ARCO had given us a standing electron microscope. Representative from ARCO were there to see that it is being used and that it is valuable, not only to people at UAF, but also to people in the community and state agencies. It was a nice event and a demonstration to ARCO that we appreciate the help from a private sector. Later this week the 2nd Native Summit will take place. At the request of JoAnne Ducharme, we have put together an attractive brochure of the highlights of Alaska Native Studies and research that has taken place over the last couple of years. The brochure will be distributed at the Native Summit. The goal is that UAF be a center for Alaska Natives. Now that election is over we are focusing on the people who will be going to Juneau. The first formal organized event is a meeting with members of the Interior Delegation to update them on UAF priorities. They will be meeting also with the Board of Visitors who will be very strong in their support of UAF. Kara Nance asked if the eleven proposals were the only ones forwarded to the President. The Chancellor indicated that they were and that about 8 proposals were not forwarded. IV Guest Speaker - April Crosby, Assistant to the President, University of Alaska Learning Cooperative. April Crosby is the president's representative to the University of Alaska Learning Cooperative. The Learning Cooperative was started in 1993-94. There are representatives from faculty and staff on the UALC. She distributed the following draft Mission Statement of the UALC. The mission of the University of Alaska Learning Cooperative (UALC) is to make University of Alaska academic programs more accessible to students, to provide greater flexibility in the design and delivery of instruction, and to make more effective use of instructional resources. Toward this end, the UALC develops recommendations for action by the President. While the UALC is concerned with broadening the educational options available to all students, it directs special attention to those students who do not pursue their educational goals through a traditional, campus-based program. The UALC serves the University by: -recommending changes to policies and practices that inhibit the broadest possible program delivery; -facilitating collaboration among University units and external partners to strengthen programs available to off-campus students; -developing effective educational designs that do not rely solely on classroom-based models; and -enhancing use of distance delivery options including appropriate instructional technology. The University of Alaska Learning Cooperative was started to ensure that Alaska students, regardless of location, are able to realize their academic goals by selecting from a wide variety of courses and programs from their local campus or other UA sites. The UALC vision is that these offerings complement and articulate with each other so that students can build the programs they need to meet their educational goals. What the UALC has done that faculty are most aware of is to make the UALC menu. That is a list of programs and courses that are proposed by any unit in the system to be available to all student in the system. The first semester this was offered there were nine students enrolled. This past semester there were 169 students. The UALC is also trying to enhance faculty development in distance delivery technology. Don asked about changes in policies or practices that UALC has recommended. April indicated that one change was to the way they register students. Another change was the consolidation of brochures and catalogs that dealt with distance education offerings around the system into one called the Distance Education and Independent Learning Bulletin. Ann Tremarello indicated that with the advent of the UALC course and Banner the process of registration will change greatly. There will be an issue of residence credits. Curricular Affairs and the Senate will need to look at how these credits will be treated. April also indicated that tuition and where it goes will be another bucket of worms. The main goal is to provide additional services to the students in a way that makes sense to the programs and faculty. The main goal is to open up the resources of the university system to the students so that they can achieve their educational goals. And in a student friendly way and as rapidly as possible. One of the questions is where does the tuition goes if a UAF student enrolls in a UAS course. It may allow the student to get the course sooner but they are taking it from a UAS faculty member. As it stands right now the tuition goes to the receiving site and the credits go to the sending institution. Another issue is that UALC has limited money allocated to faculty development in the past. They originally tried to find faculty members who were interested in going to conferences and distance delivery training programs that were offered nationally. After a couple of year they decided that it was a hit or miss way to spend the money and what we ought to do is beef up the amount of money available and allocated it to a program which have been developing for statewide delivery. The extended campus directors last year identified the BBA as the highest priority for them to deliver statewide. It was decided that UAS's BBA would be the program delivered statewide. UAA and UAF were given the opportunity to contribute courses to this program. But it is UASıs degree that is delivered statewide. So the UALC has decided to give the faculty development money to the UAS BBA faculty to bring them along to the skill level that they will need to continue this on a statewide basis. Similarly the UAF BBA faculty would be involved in that faculty development options as would the UAA faculty. When the extended campus directors identify the next baccalaurette level program that they need to be statewide then the next year faculty development money would go to that faculty statewide. April indicated that UAA will have one course and UAF will provide two courses. Tom Robinson asked about the Western Governors Virtual University. April indicated that they were tracking the development of it and in fact the UAS-Sitka campus director has worked quite closely with WICHE because they was a UAS-SItka program delivered in Wyoming last year through a WICHE grant. President Komisar has written a letter to Governor Knowles saying that the University is supportive of being on the steering committee to keep working on how it develops. V Governance Reports A. ASUAF - C. Wheeler ASUAF is holding a special election on a proposal to increase the student activity fee by $5. What the money will do is to pay off their debt over the next two semesters. After that it will be put into the operating budget and redistributed to their programs. It will offset the decreases in their budget due to decreases in enrollment. The Senate is working on the NB grade policy and will have a motion to maintain the NB grade. The next project ASUAF is working on is to increase the interaction with the Downtown Center and Hutchison Center. They are trying to get programs developed for those students to meet their needs. ASUAF should be representative of all UAF students, not just the ones on campus. Catherine will be attending the Student Leadership Conference in Portland later this week. She hopes to bring new ideas back and get different programs going to make ASUAF stronger. Don asked that whatever action the student senate takes on the NB grade be forward to the Governance Office as soon as possible for distribution to our relevant committees. Kara Nance and Madeline Schatz questioned Catherine about the student proposal for computer access and upgrading. Catherine indicated that she had discussed the proposal with the Chancellor but that there wasnıt a formal written proposal from her at this time. Madeline indicated that she had a problem with the students receiving the approval on their unwritten proposal when their department had not received an answer of why their proposal did not make the list. John Craven asked about the representation of graduate students on ASUAF. Catherine indicated that the graduate students do not use many of their services but that they have had graduate students serve on the senate and different councils and committees. B. Staff Council - R. Pierce Ron indicated that Staff Council is working on five issues. The first project is a staff development and training program that they are trying to put together and institute starting the first of the year. We expect to have better staff support to support the university in its endeavors because of this training program. Staff Council is also working on a recognition program for staff at this campus. The first draft has been submitted to the Chancellor and she has had a few comments. They are now working on a second draft. The third item that affects staff and faculty is the Retirement Incentive Program. Staff Council is watching to see how this is implemented in terms of what kinds of vacancies we will experience. The fourth item is the Job Evaluation Process. That process has experienced some delays and we do not expect to have the results released until January. The outcome of the program is questionable at this point. However, it has been reported that approximately 85-86% of all the staff that have been evaluated are correctly evaluated in terms of their position. Of the remaining 14%, about half may be downgraded one grade and the other half may be upgraded one grade. Finally, a benefits committee is looking at the health insurance benefit. The health benefits offered by the University is more than likely going to change because of the rising costs. That committee is just now being formed and they have a timeline for a program that will be presented sometime in April. While they are studying that benefit they will also look at a combination of sick leave and annual leave for a program of paid time off. C. President's Report - D. Lynch Don's report was attached to the agenda and he had no additional comments. D. President-Elect's Comments - J. Craven John went over the highlights of his written report. The Faculty Alliance is now working on coordinating meeting dates. The Alliance is also working on uniform definition of grades amongst the three MAU's. The Graduate School Advisory Committee has been working on advising and they have a motion today. At the undergraduate level there is much that needs to be done. There are two motions in the agenda that deal with updating committee duties. With regards to the Scholarly Activities Committee--John finds it remarkable that a tripartite faculty would have active committees for teaching and service, but not for research and other scholarly affairs outside the classroom. The provost, deans and directors have been hearing about the new Federal requirements for accounting. There are new implications for faculty submitting proposals. VI Public Comments/Questions - Hild Sandstede, Campus Coordinator for the Instructional Assessment System (IAS), spoke on Student Opinion of Instruction. UAF purchases the forms and reports from the University of Washington. At UAF, it is mandatory that the Instructional Assessment System response forms be distributed to all courses/sections with exception for courses with less than five students; courses of less than three weeks; linked lab classes; and independent study or individualized instruction. Faculty have the choice of eleven forms. Once the survey forms are completed in class they are returned to the unit coordinator where the yellow hand written comment sheets are separated out and returned directly to faculty after grades are submitted. It takes approximately 4 weeks from the completion of the survey in class to the time when a generated report from UW is received. Copies of the report summarizing student responses to the survey are distributed to the instructor, department head, dean, and provost. The comprehensive campus report is given to ASUAF who creates a booklet made available to student and the library. Questions about the process can be directed to the unit coordinator who is located in the dean's or directors office or to Hild at x5327 (465 Duckering) or firstname.lastname@example.org. VII Old Business A. Motion to continue tabling of the Withdrawal/No Basis grade issue until the December 9, 1996 face-to-face meeting, submitted by Curricular Affairs. MOTION PASSED (unanimous) ============== The UAF Faculty Senate moves to continue the tabling of the Withdrawal/No Basis grade issue until the December 9, 1996 face- to-face meeting. EFFECTIVE: Immediately RATIONALE: The Curricular Affairs (CA) and the Developmental Studies (DS) Committees have a sub- committee tasked with developing a compromise motion. This sub-committee is meeting by audioconference and will report back to CA and DS from which a motion will be sent to the Faculty Senate. The December 9, 1996, Senate meeting is face-to-face allowing for full participation of all Senators. ******************* VIII New Business A. Motion on when basic Core skills courses are accomplished, submitted by Core Review. Don opened discussion on the motion. Jin Brown indicated that in reviewing a lot of petitions students end up taking upper division "O" & "W" courses prior to taking the lower division required courses and 1) don't do well and 2) petition to get out of the lower division courses having done upper division courses. This motion tries to get back to the spirit of the Core Curriculum and require that students get these first courses out of the way. The committee feels there is good reason for that. In talking to the assessment team about retention, he indicated that one thing that can be done to enhance retention is to be sure that students get through the lower division core course before they get into the upper division courses. Don asked how this would affect part-time student who comes to take a specific upper division course that happens to be an "O" or "W" course. Jin Brown indicated that he would be denied admission except with instructor permission. Tom Robinson asked Ann Tremarello about prerequisite checks on the Banner system. Ann indicated that was an issue that the Senate will have to look at closely on whether or not you want a student who is trying to get into the course without the prerequisites. There are alternate ways that other schools use including sending a list of students who do not meet the prerequisites to the faculty along with class rolls. Madeline Schatz spoke in favor of the motion. An amendment was proposed to clarify that English 111 be completed prior to enrollment in "W" designated courses and Communication 131 be completed prior to enrollment in "O" designated courses and eliminate the word incoming. The amendment passed with 19 ayes, 9 nays. Norm Swazo also indicated that the motion should include a statement on exceptions allowed on the basis of permission of instructor. The amendment passed with 20 ayes and 8 nays. The motion passed with 22 ayes, 6 nays. MOTION PASSED (22 ayes, 6 nays) ============== The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve the Core Review Committee's recommendation on when basic Core skills courses shall be accomplished. Beginning Fall 1997 all students are required successfully to accomplish English 111X prior to enrollment in written intensive ("W") courses and Communication 131X (or 141X) prior to enrollment in oral intensive ("O") courses. Exceptions are allowable on the basis of permission of instructor. EFFECTIVE: Fall 1997 RATIONALE: Having spent a week with Jim Ratcliff discussing the University's mandate for Effectiveness Evaluation, we have identified an obvious flaw in the way the University has enacted the CORE curriculum. For whatever historical reasons the current lack of an imposed time frame for accomplishing CORE skills has come about, if the University is serious about current efforts to do a curriculum-enhancing assessment and to improve the retention of a greater percentage of incoming students, it is time to change the expectation of when basic CORE skills courses shall be accomplished. As the requirements stand, no student is required to complete basic skills courses at any specific point before graduation. This situation is antithetical to any sense of what those courses are intended to accomplish. If, as stated, we intend to give our students the tools with which to be competitive, both in classes at the University and life experience beyond, the most primary skills of writing, speaking, and working with diverse groups must be a part of the educational experience as close to the student's entry into the educational process as we can accommodate. How can we expect to encourage content education of students who are preoccupied with a lack of or deficit in basic student skills? And how can students participate in experiences that encourage retention if a lack of basic skills robs them of the satisfaction that learning successes engenders? It is the position of the Core Review Committee that English IIIX and Communication 131X (or 141X) should be accomplished, as a requirement, in the student's first year of classes. In recognizing that such a shift in requirements, while it is in line with practices at many other state universities, might be a hardship to this University, we believe that we must require basic skills courses to be completed before the end of the sophomore year. Both Communication and English serve over 100% of demand by the end of enrollment. Given the anecdotal experience of teaching faculty in regard to the current policy vacuum, we submit this motion. ****************** B. Motion to eliminated registration signature requirement for continuing Graduate Students, submitted by Graduate Curricular Affairs. Kara Nance indicated that the objective of the motion is to not require an advisors signature for continuing graduate students to register. The additional statement is issued as a warning that if your tuition is paid by an RA or TA it covers only courses approved by your committee. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION PASSED ============== The UAF Faculty Senate moves to eliminate the requirement for an advisor's signature on a registration form for all continuing graduate students Furthermore, it will become policy of the University of Alaska Fairbanks starting in Fiscal Year 1998 that all graduate research assistantships, teaching assistantships, fellowship and tuition scholarship stipend letters contain the following language: tuition paid as part of graduate assistantships, fellowships, or tuition scholarships covers only courses approved by the student's Advisory Committee. EFFECTIVE: July 1, 1997 RATIONALE: The signature requirement was originally instituted to ensure that 1) graduate students get advising and work closely with their advisor and committee in course selection; and 2) the university and/or grants which pay tuition are not paying for courses that are not reasonably related to the progress of the student. However, it was the consensus of the Graduate Curricular Affairs Committee that the requirement to obtain an advisor's signatures for registration did not meet either of these goals, and could be construed as paternalistic towards graduate students. However, removal of the signature requirement leaves concern about oversight of the classes being taken by those graduate students receiving research or teaching assistantships, fellowships or tuition scholarships. After further discussion of the role of faculty advisors and the necessity for advisors to play a pro-active role in reaching out to students to track class enrollment, progress and performance, and discussion on the necessity for the University to be clear about what courses a student can take when the UAF or a research grant is paying for tuition, the motion above was unanimously approved by members of GCAC. **************** C. Motion to amend Section 3 (ARTICLE V: Committees) E., PERMANENT, 8. of the Bylaws, submitted by Faculty Appeals & Oversight. Diane Bischak indicated that this was an amendment to the Bylaws concerning the charge of the Faculty Appeals & Oversight Committee. It clarifies the charge and specifies composition of the promotion/ tenure appeals subcommittee. It enlarges the charge of the committee in the formation of the non-retention appeals subcommittee. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION PASSED ============== The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend Section 3 (ARTICLE V: Committees) E., PERMANENT, 8. of the Bylaws as follows: (( )) = deletion CAPS = addition The Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee shall be composed of two tenured faculty members, elected from each college/school and confirmed by the Faculty Senate, who shall serve for a two year term. Members' terms will be staggered to provide continuity. ((This committee will function as an appeal body for issues of faculty prerogative, oversee evaluation of academic administrators, and make recommendations to the Provost or Chancellor.)) A promotion/tenure appeals subcommittee composed of five tenured faculty will hear all promotion and/or tenure reconsideration requests and report its findings to the Chancellor according to University of Alaska Fairbanks Regulations, Section IV ,B, 4. THE SUBCOMMITTEE WILL BE SELECTED BY THE CHAIR OF THE FACULTY APPEALS AND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE AND WILL NOT INCLUDE FACULTY FROM THE UNITS IN WHICH THE REQUESTS FOR RECONSIDERATION ORIGINATED. NO TWO FACULTY FROM THE SAME UNIT, AS CURRENTLY ELECTED TO THE COMMITTEE, WILL BE SELECTED FOR THE SUBCOMMITTEE. Committee members shall constitute a hearing panel pool to serve as needed on grievance hearing panels, AS SPECIFIED IN REGENTS' POLICY 04.08.08.VI.A. Committee members shall oversee the process of evaluation of academic administrators. A NON-RETENTION APPEALS SUBCOMMITTEE COMPOSED OF FIVE TENURED FACULTY WILL HEAR ALL NON-RETENTION RECONSIDERATION REQUESTS AND REPORT ITS FINDINGS TO THE CHANCELLOR. THIS SUBCOMMITTEE WILL CONDUCT BUSINESS IN THE SAME FASHION AS THE PROMOTION/TENURE APPEALS SUBCOMMITTEE, I.E., WILL REVIEW THE AVAILABLE DOCUMENTS AND MAKE A DETERMINATION ON WHETHER OR NOT APPROPRIATE POLICY AND DUE PROCESS WAS FOLLOWED. COMMITTEE MEMBERS SHALL REVIEW ISSUES DEALING WITH FACULTY PREROGATIVE AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR POLICY CHANGES TO THE FACULTY SENATE. EFFECTIVE: Immediately RATIONALE: This motion clarifies the charge of the committee as currently stated in the Bylaws. It also adds a non-retention appeals subcommittee to hear non-retention reconsideration requests. This will provide an avenue for appeals by non-retained faculty similar to that provided by the promotion/tenure appeals subcommittee for faculty who are denied tenure or promotion. ******************** D. Resolution to recommend that returning faculty (after sabbatical leave) participate in the Faculty Seminar Series, submitted by Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement Rich Seifert indicated that this was originally a motion to legitimize further the idea of a faculty seminar for those faculty returning from a sabbatical leave as part of their obligations to the university. The current Board of Regents' policy obligates them to a written report. This makes the obligation of a faculty seminar part of that obligation. We didn't want to change the policy yet, because we haven't successfully done this, but on the other hand we wanted encourage faculty to participate in this series. Norm asked about who would adopt a procedure, when it would take effect and who would monitor compliance. Rich indicated that it is a procedure to have the obligation fulfilled once the sabbatical is completed. The procedure would be then to submit a written report and then also have a Faculty Seminar review. Maynard indicated that it was his understanding that rural faculty would have the option of participating in the series through audioconference or to their own campus faculty. Linda Curda indicated that there would be a number of options for a public presentation of people, information, and experience of sabbatical leave. Rich added that the underlining rationale for this resolution is the initiative to raise the image and visibility of faculty and what faculty do in the university community itself and also to the public. Janice Reynolds asked for clarification on the Faculty Seminar Series. Rich said the first seminar is scheduled in December and will feature Ray Barnhardt. Janice suggested a friendly amendment to urge the development of a series, and then a way of expanding it through requiring faculty returning from sabbatical to participate. Madeline Schatz stated that there have been so many different seminar series that she has been invited to speak and then there is nobody in the audience. Madeline indicated that she would be against adding another requirement to what a person returning from sabbatical has to do until the series existed. Rich mentioned that we would try to make these presentations available as radio presentations whenever that was feasible. It is not limited to a formal seminar only, but can be several aspect of presenting a formal seminar in other media. The resolution passed by a vote of 17 ayes, 12 nays. RESOLUTION PASSED ================== WHEREAS, current UA Board of Regents policy calls for faculty returning from a sabbatical leave to submit a written report; and WHEREAS, the Faculty Development, Improvement, and Assessment Committee of the UAF Faculty Senate recommends that an oral report to the faculty of the university, one in the series of Faculty Seminars sponsored jointly by the Faculty Senate, Provost's Office, and the Academic Unit in which the faculty member holds their appointment, be a new requirement of the returning sabbatical leave faculty member; and WHEREAS, this fosters intellectual exchange within UAF academic community, reinforces the legitimacy of sabbatical leaves to reinvigorate faculty, and provides opportunities to share UAF's research and scholarly traditions and experiences with the broader constituencies of UAF and the community statewide; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the UAF Faculty Senate recommends the development of a Faculty Seminar Series. The purpose of the seminar is to expand the opportunities of faculty returning from sabbatical leave and require participation in the Faculty Seminar Series. ***************** E. Motion to amend Section 3 (ARTICLE V: Committees) A., of the Bylaws, submitted by Administrative Committee John Craven remarked that each new incoming President-Elect reads the constitution and bylaws for the first time with serious intent. As chair of the Administrative Committee he has noted that there are no instructions at all on the obligations of the that committee. Based on how the Administrative Committee actually operates, John summarized the important elements of that operation and submitted it to the Administrative Committee as an amendment to actually define the tasks of the committee. It is based on the obligation of the committee to fully prepare the agenda and materials for the efficient operation of the senate. Linda Curda commended John and said that it was an excellent summary, very clear, and will keep the committee from inventing the wheel each year. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION PASSED ============== The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend Section 3 (Article V: Committees) A., of the Bylaws as follows: (( )) = deletion CAPS = addition A. An Administrative Committee will be composed of the chairpersons of all standing and permanent Senate committees, AND THE PROVOST OF THE UNIVERSITY SHALL BE AN EX OFFICIO, NON- VOTING MEMBER. SPECIFIC DUTIES OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE IN ITS OBLIGATION TO FULLY PREPARE THE AGENDA AND MATERIALS FOR EFFICIENT OPERATION OF THE SENATE ARE: 1. RECEIVE REPORTS FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE, THE PROVOST, AND, AS DEEMED TIMELY, OTHER INDIVIDUALS, ON ISSUES OF CURRENT AND FUTURE IMPORTANCE TO THE SENATE; 2. ACCEPT AND REVIEW THE MOTIONS OF STANDING AND PERMANENT COMMITTEES, AND FROM MEMBERS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE; 3. MAKE CERTAIN THAT THE MOTIONS ARE READY FOR SENATE ACTION TO THE MAXIMUM DEGREE POSSIBLE, AND IF NOT, REFER THEM BACK FOR FURTHER WORK AND/OR DIRECT THEM TO OTHER RELEVANT COMMITTEES THAT MAY NOT HAVE CONSIDERED THE MOTIONS; 4. MOVE THE MOTIONS TO THE SENATE'S AGENDA; 5. REVIEW AND APPROVE OTHER ITEMS OF THE SENATE'S AGENDA, AS DEEMED NECESSARY; 6. REVIEW REPORTS OF ALL COMMITTEE WORK IN PROGRESS; AND 7. DISCUSS OTHER ISSUES, THAT MAY OR SHOULD LEAD TO LATER COMMITTEE AND SENATE ACTIONS. IN ADDITION, 8. WITHIN THE SCOPE OF AUTHORITY GRANTED BY THE SENATE AT THE LAST MEETING OF THE SPRING SEMESTER, THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE WILL REPRESENT THE SENATE FROM THE CLOSE OF THE LAST SENATE MEETING IN THE SPRING UNTIL THE OPENING OF THE FIRST SENATE MEETING OF THE FALL SEMESTER; AND 9. AT THE FIRST MEETING IN THE FALL SEMESTER MAKE A REPORT OF ALL ACTIONS CARRIED OUT IN THE NAME OF THE SENATE SINCE THE LAST MEETING IN THE SPRING SEMESTER. EFFECTIVE: Immediately RATIONALE: The duties and obligations of the Administrative Committee are not clearly defined in the Constitution and Bylaws, and can vary from year to year based on the experiences and desires of individuals chairing the committee. ******************* F. Motion to appoint an ad hoc committee to study the structures of faculty governance at universities in which faculty are unionized, submitted by Administrative Committee Don indicated that this was a motion to confirm the appointment of the three committee chairs as members of the ad hoc committee. At the last Senate meeting the chairs of the committees agreed to serve on this committee. Norm Swazo as the new chair of Faculty Affairs agreed to serve. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION PASSED ============== The UAF Faculty Senate moves to appoint an ad hoc committee to study the relationship and/or structures of faculty governance at universities in which the faculty are unionized, and to report back to the Senate in a timely manner. Members will be: Rich Seifert, Chair, Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement Committee Diane Bischak, Chair, Faculty Appeals & Oversight Committee Norm Swazo, Chair, Faculty Affairs Committee EFFECTIVE: Immediately RATIONALE: Significant interest has been expressed for a senate study of these issues, and one committee has already formed a subcommittee. A coordinated effort is required. Greater understanding of these relationships can aid the Senate in its preparations for the new environment. Three individual committee chairs have agreed to serve on such a committee. ******************* G. Motion on course compression, submitted by Curricular Affairs The motion was distributed at the Senate meeting and read by Don Lynch. It reaffirms that 500-level courses compressed to less than six weeks must follow the course compression policy as stated. Maynard indicated that Provost Keating has received questions on the policy and had asked the committee to confirm the committee's intent. Maynard was also a member of the 1995 committee. It was the committee's intent that all courses at UAF with no differentiation for any course not to meet these guidelines. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION PASSED ============== The UAF Faculty Senate moves to confirm that any and all UAF courses were included in the course compression and course approval motion passed by the Faculty Senate's #59 meeting dated November 13, 1995. EFFECTIVE: Immediately RATIONALE: In the Curricular Affairs meeting dated October 11, 1996 this issue was discussed and it was moved in committee to confirm that the 500 level courses were included in the November 13, 1995 motion. The November 13, 1995 motion originally came from the Curricular Affairs Committee. Motion in question: Any course compressed to less than six weeks must be approved by the college or school's curriculum council. Furthermore, any core course compressed to less than 6 weeks must be approved by the Core Review Committee. Any new course proposal must indicate those course compression formats in which the course will be taught. Only those formats approved will be allowed for scheduling. ******************* IX Committee Reports A. Curricular Affairs - Maynard Perkins A report was attached to the agenda. The subcommittee addressing the no basis grade will meet on Thursday, November 14th at 10:00 am. B. Faculty Affairs - Norm Swazo Norm Swazo was elected as the new chair of Faculty Affairs. The following report was distributed as a handout. FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE REPORT The Faculty Affairs Committee met on Friday, November 08. Agenda items included (1 ) election of a new committee chair, (2) the role of department heads on unit peer review committees, (3) department prerogatives for admission to degree programs, (4) faculty ethics statement, (5) UA administration policy on faculty raises for the current academic year, (6) union/governance relations, (7) the Provost Council's discussion of the Delaware Study concerning enrollment data per faculty person. Action taken on these items: 1. Consequent to the resignation of David Spell, Norm Swazo was nominated and elected Committee Chair. David Spell remains a member of the committee and of the Senate. 2. There is some question about how to interpret the policy about the role of department heads on unit peer review committees. Several questions at issue: Is it the case that a department head may serve on a unit committee only to meet the minimum of seven tenured faculty members? Are we to -- and should we -- distinguish between when the department head functions as faculty person and when as administrator? Might it be left to the discretion of the peer committee or at the option of the department head whether to serve? The Committee agreed to review the existing policy prior to recommending action on this issue. 3. The question of departmental prerogative in having admission requirements originates consequent to the proposal from the Criminal Justice program, which proposal was vetoed by the Provost. At issue is whether the Senate should have some position regarding admission standards generally. Since this matter has already been reviewed by Curricular Affairs, Faculty Affairs will request an update from Maynard Perkins on any action/recommendation forthcoming from that committee. The issue more properly falls under the purview of Curricular Affairs and would be taken up by Faculty Affairs only to relieve that committee of its current overload. 4. The Committee, along with Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee, has been charged by the President of the Senate with the task of formulating a "positive", though preferably "enforceable", faculty ethics statement. It is to be noted that the charge is optional and not a directive. To the extent that this charge is undertaken, Faculty Affairs will undertake to draft the initial statement and Faculty Appeals will then review in terms of the matter of enforcement. The issue of a faculty ethics statement is clearly controversial, given (a) the heterogeneity of faculty functions across and within tripartite responsibilities, and (b) the difficulty of articulating a statement that, while ostensibly enforceable, would not become counterproductive because of potential litigation (e.g., especially in terms of ethics-code enforcement's that would inevitably touch on Constitutionally protected conduct). The Committee approaches this issue with considerable caution. At the outset we will identify and review the various policies now in place which are designed to regulate faculty conduct (e.g., academic honesty/plagiarism; research protocol in the use of animals and/or humans as subjects; academic freedom; sexual harassment; etc.). Thereafter we will decide whether and how to proceed. 5. The Committee took note of a memo from Patty Kastelic (Exec. Dir., Statewide Human Resources) and Jim Johnsen (Director, Labor Relations), dated 29 October 1996, on the subject of faculty compensation. Specifically, at issue is the regulation regarding discretionary annual increases and performance based adjustments to salary. Apparently, the policy in effect last year is to remain in effect this year, pending collective bargaining negotiations. It is unclear whether this means the policy only or also the various procedures UAF colleges put in place to implement the policy. The memo says: "...it has been determined that a change in the Regents' Policy and Regulation regarding compensation may constitute an unfair labor practice in violation of the state collective bargaining law. Consequently, compensation policy and regulation covering faculty will not be unilaterally changed until the University and the union have had an opportunity to negotiate over the aspects of this subject which are mandatory subjects of collective bargaining." It is also unclear whether the memo issued by Kastelic and Johnsen premises implicitly that there will be another faculty raise this year. Faculty Affairs chair Norm Swazo will seek clarification on this matter from Provost Keating. 6. Faculty should note that the Administrative Committee will be presenting a motion (at the Nov 11 meeting of the Faculty Senate) setting up an ad hoc committee to study union/governance relations. The committee will include the chairs of Faculty Affairs, Faculty Appeals & Oversight, and Faculty Development Committees. 7. The final item of discussion concerned the Administration's use of "the Delaware Study" as a basis for analyzing UA enrollment figures per faculty person. President Lynch addressed this issue briefly in part in his summary of the Provost Council's meeting of 06 November. Faculty Affairs expressed some concern that this study may be used for comparisons among MAU's with a view to justifying budgetary reallocations among campuses. C. Graduate Curricular Affairs - Mark Tumeo A report was attached to the agenda. D. Scholarly Activities - Ron Barry No report was available. E. CNCSHDR - Rudy Krejci No report was available. F. Developmental Studies - Ron Illingworth The following report was submitted as a handout. The Faculty Senate Developmental Studies Committee continues investigations into ways of affecting the climate for learning at all of the UAF campuses. The underlying presumption is that we, as faculty, can have a positive effect on this climate and that there are things which we, as faculty, can do to affect it. Improving the learning climate, we believe, will also increase retention. We have several initiatives in progress at this time. The Faculty Senate Developmental Studies Committee has concentrated on two issues so far this semester--evaluation of the COMPASS program for assessment and placement of students as an alternative to the ASSET test and grading policies. - The COMPASS computer program has been installed on a server on the Fairbanks campus and is being made available for on- site testing at rural campus locations. This on-site evaluation will occur during November and December. - Members of the Developmental Studies Committee are meeting with members of the Curricular Affairs Committee to discuss grading policies. Discussions are on-going and recommendations will be returned to the parent committees and subsequently to the Faculty Senate. Other initiatives which will continue during this year include: - Discussions involving improving the campus climate for learning at UAF's Fairbanks and rural campuses. These include what areas can or should be changed, who is responsible for those areas, and what can be done to affect change. - Enhancing the opportunity for student educational success. - Better identification of student starting points. - Improving student placement into specific courses. - Renorming of the American College Testing ASSET test for UAF's Fairbanks and rural campuses in order to ensure its applicability to our student population. - Evaluation of the Supplemental Instruction system for possible implementation in a video supplemental instruction (VSI) mode with selected courses for UAF's Fairbanks and rural campuses. VSI is a successful industry initiative which has been adapted for post-secondary use. - Discussions involving the relationship between student financial aid, grading policies, and developmental classes. - Development of institutional research data regarding students involved in developmental classes at UAF. G. Faculty Appeals & Oversight - Diane Bischak A report was attached to the agenda. H. Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement - Rich Seifert A report was attached to the agenda. I. Graduate School Advisory Committee - Peggy Schumaker A report was attached to the agenda. J. Legislative & Fiscal Affairs - Michael Jennings No report was available. K. Service Committee - Kara Nance No report was available. L. University-Wide Promotion/Tenure - John Keller No report was available. M. Core Review - Jin Brown A report was attached to the agenda. X Discussion Items - none XI Members' Comments/Questions - none XII Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 3:50 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.