I The meeting was called to order by President Schatz at 1:35 p.m. A. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Bandopadhyay, S. Bader, H. Barnhardt, C. Mortensen, B. Basham, C. Nance, K. Bruder, J. Porter, D. Conti, E. (L. Duffy) Corti, L. Curda, L. Deal, S. OTHERS PRESENT: Dinstel, R. Bailey, G. Fitts, A. Bantz, D. Gatterdam, R. Barnhardt, R. Grigg, S. Ducharme, J. Illingworth, R. Gregory, G. Johnson, T.. Hamilton, M. Lando, C. Ivey, P. Luick, B. Layral, S. Manfredi, R. Martin, W. McBeath, G. (& C. Naske) McHenry, S. McLean-Nelson, D. Redman, W. Musgrave, D. Thomas, D. Norcross, B. Wadlow, J. Olson, J. Perkins, M. Reynolds, J. Sankaran, H. Schatz, M. Sonwalkar, V. Weber, J. Whalen, M. White, D. Yarie, J. Zilberkant, E. NON-VOTING MEMBERS PRESENT: NON-VOTING MEMBERS ABSENT: Richardson, J.-President, ASUAF Fletcher, H. - GSO Alexander, V. - Dean, SFOS Frey, B. - President, UAFSC Leipzig, J. - Interim Dean, CLA Tremarello, A - University Registrar B. The minutes to Meeting #80 (May 4, 1998) were approved as distributed via e-mail. C. The agenda was approved as distributed via e-mail with the addition of Item III. D. Dana Thomas, Provost's Faculty Associate for Academic Development & Assessment. II Status of Chancellor's Office Actions A. Motions Approved: 1. Motion to amend the Baccalaureate Core Curriculum for Aesthetic Appreciation. 2. Motion that 1998-99 incoming graduate students may elect to fulfill the master's degree requirements from either the 1997-98 or 1998-99 catalog. 3. Motion to amend the UAF Grade Appeals Policy. 4. Motion to approve the Unit Criteria for Communications. B. Motions Pending: 1. Motion prohibiting faculty from receiving a graduate degree from UAF. III A. Remarks by Chancellor Joan Wadlow - Chancellor Wadlow has requested an extension on the motion pending. She is waiting for views from legal council. At that time she will be in a position to act on the motion. The first item Wadlow discussed was the budget request UAF will be making for FY00. In the operation portion of the budget we must restore the academic foundation of UAF to deal with academic repair. Specifically, what we have proposed is that we receive state funding for the highest priority faculty positions that emerged from the internal process last spring. We have also asked for funding for the next tier of high priority faculty positions. Those high priorities have yet to be determined and we will do that through an internal process at UAF over the months ahead. We have placed a high priority on a range of activities that we are told will improve student academic success; the student experience at UAF. We still are not making as much progress as we need to in keeping students nor are we getting students who are bound for a certificate or a degree to those degrees in a timely way. We need to listen to what students tell us about ways to improve the learning climate on campus. We are proposing that we receive additional funding for a range of necessities. Everything from increasing student access to technology to augmenting the number and types of hands-on experiments, enhancing the process for learning outcomes and determining how effective we are being with increased library services both on campus as well as the many areas around the state that the Rasmuson Library serves. The outcome of such funding would be to be able to use technology to meet the needs of the faculty for instruction. The third major area UAF is concentrating on in the operating budget is research for economic development in Alaska. The McDowell report showed that 67% of Alaskans support universities which will contribute to economic development in Alaska. We are focusing on how we can use the facilities and the unique elements at UAF more fully. In 1998 three new facilities will be opened: the SeaLife Center in Seward; the expanded fisheries facility in Kodiak; and the International Arctic Research Center (IARC). We don't have enough researchers to fully use the facilities. We need to strengthen our capacity to use these facilities fully and to make a significant contribution. If we look beyond the new facilities to ones that have been upgraded recently--Toolik Lake, Poker Flats, the new Greenhouse--how are we making full use of these? The Provost sent out a request to deans/directors to get ideas. In the College of Rural Alaska we have struggled with ways to meet the specific localized research needs but without creating a new research unit. The proposal has been shaped into one that will be a collaborative proposal with the established research programs and institutes. That is the gist of the components of the operating budget. The capital budget is basically the same as last year modified because of the legislative appropriation for deferred maintenance. We will still have deferred maintenance. The deferred maintenance in the museum has been bumped up so that it will be done at the same time as the expansion takes place. Other areas we are emphasizing in the capital budget are the joint project with the school district/Hutchison, the infrastructure renovation of the Lola Tilly Commons, the joint facility with NOAA in Juneau, and, as we expand on the West Ridge, to strengthen and expand the infrastructure. In the rural areas we continue to ask for funds for the food storage facility in Kuskokwim and classrooms in Bristol Bay. Those are some of the highlights of the capital budget. The second item is enrollment. Unfortunately we can't report that enrollment is up. Here in Fairbanks and TVC the headcount is down at least 3%. We are still calculating the numbers from the rural areas. We will have a more full report when the figures are in. We need to be more aggressive when promoting the special aspect of UAF. Finally, Chancellor Wadlow wanted to remind everyone about what was in the Cornerstone--A preliminary progress report on the stages we have reached toward the goals for the Year 2000. A progress report has been distributed electronically. To reach it go to the UAF web page and click on News & Events and you will have instructions to get to this particular update. It is a message to the UAF community. The senior administration has been to come up with a tentative analysis of our progress based on a list of representative achievements under each of the six goals as well as the elements that are needed to put the plan into action. The assessment gives a tentative evaluation of where we are and also points to areas where greater emphasis needs to be made. We invite your response and suggestions. This is a working document for the workshop to be held October 13th for deans/directors and representatives of governance. Jerry McBeath asked about enrollment breakdown in areas. Wadlow indicated that she had a tentative breakdown but it is not complete. However, the enrollment at the lower division level on the Fairbanks campus is down. B. Remarks by Provost, Paul Reichardt - Paul provided the following written comments. MEMBERS OF THE FACULTY SENATE: I am very sorry that I had to miss my first Senate meeting as Provost. I am dedicated to the principle of shared governance, and I believe that developing a good working relationship with the Senate is one of my most critical responsibilities. However, pressing IARC matters have dictated that I be in Vancouver, B.C. today. I will, however, do all that I can to join your discussion about promotion/tenure matters by audioconference later in your meeting. I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate something I said upon becoming Dean of CNS. In my first meeting with the faculty as Dean, I assured them that I was still the same guy who had worked with them for many years as a fellow faculty member. I said, "They don't give lobotomies to deans." As far as I can tell, they don't give provosts lobotomies either. My heart is still in the classroom and the laboratory. That's my frame of reference for all my decisions and actions. I hope, that no matter how much we may disagree on certain issues, we will always be able to frame the debate in terms of what's best for UAF and its students. In that light, I'd like to inform you about three recent developments. The first one should be merely a reminder. Private donations have allowed us to again, this Academic Year, offer small grants to support undergraduate research projects. The application forms have already been distributed, and I assume that you have already seen them. Please encourage your colleagues to publicize this opportunity to our undergraduates throughout UAF's schools and colleges and to impress upon them the tremendous value of "out-of- class" learning experiences like those supported by this project. Second, I am delighted to announce that Dana Thomas of the Department of Mathematical Sciences has agreed to serve as the Provost's Faculty Associate for Academic Development and Assessment. For the next couple of years Dana will lead UAF's efforts in faculty development as well as our institutional reaccreditation effort. His faculty development efforts this year will focus on UAF's portion of a systemwide program in instructional technology. Working with the staff of the Instructional Technology Center in the library, Dana will deliver a program which will assist UAF faculty members in taking advantage of the infrastructure we have developed over the past few years for "technoteaching." On the accreditation front, Dana will assist all of UAF's academic programs to develop their "outcomes-based" assessment plans. Our institutional accreditation timeline calls for all assessment plans to be in place by the end of this academic year and for pilot runs of implementation to take place next year. Third, I am pleased to let you know that, upon becoming Provost, I discovered a $200K line in my office's budget for instructional equipment. For years, our programs ranging from music to biology have been starved for instructional equipment funds. This permanent budget line, created by reallocations called for in Program Assessment, should allow us to at least address our most critical needs in this area. I plan to develop guidelines for distributing this year's funds over the next several weeks. I will close with some brief comments about this year's processes for promotion, tenure, retention and post-tenure reviews. None of us are completely happy with the process nor the timeline. In fact, if I were present at your meeting, I would suggest a "collective groan" at this point. All I can add to the discussion are assurances that: (1) I have put a premium on faculty involvement in the design of the processes; (2) I have made every effort to abide by the terms of union contracts; and (3) I stand ready to quickly address oversights, errors, or insurmountable problems associated with the present plan. Let's all commit to "making it through this round" and then devoting some time next Spring to assessment and any necessary modifications. I hope that both as a Faculty Senate and as individual faculty members, you all have a great year!! C. Guest Speaker - Mark Hamilton, UA President President Hamilton indicated he was delighted to meet the Senate group and hopes it will be one of many and frequent meetings. This group represents a significant source of advice and counsel and guidance and approval. Hamilton wanted to share his broad brush impressions that have occurred to him in the past 30 days. The most important one is a follow up to what the chancellor just mentioned. We have to collectively solve the issue of the youth of this state choosing to go somewhere outside the state for their post-secondary education. Hamilton suspects that open admission has something to do with the perception that this must not be a quality institution. All the facts would argue that that is not the case. Nevertheless, the perception exists. He rejects the comments that we are remote and sparsely populated therefore the students want to go someplace else. He doesn't buy the idea that we can't be content with our geography and isotherm. Selling that quality entails two important steps. We must establish for ourselves and others that it is true and look hard at what constitutes that quality. It can not be all things to all people. We must be more focused if we are going to define for ourselves those areas of excellence that we can build upon and market. We must tell people what is at hand. We don't do an excellent job of doing that and we ought to. One of our greatest strengths is access to quality faculty. We need to regain our touch with the community of the state. The chancellor mentioned this year's budget. The story he will carry to Juneau says that they made the right call last year. We have applied the money they gave last year to facilities. Now, let's address the recapitalization of faculty. It is easier to get support for building another building than it is for building a faculty. When you hear over and over comments that there is too much faculty, whether it's true or not, it is a perception we have to deal with. No one is going to be very excited about a budget story that highlights faculty. Hamilton needs help from faculty in that arena. He needs help in understanding the right matrix for UAF. It is not the same for all campuses. It should be a matrix of excellence that we believe in even if that matrix judges us to be short of the excellence we seek. It is not an instructive matrix to deal with student/ faculty ratios without a lot of caveats. Hamilton is not inclined to build the right size faculty for the current student body. He would much prefer that we build a quality faculty, administrating quality programs that will attract and accommodate the size of student body we want to have. He needs to understand workloads to the degree that he can explain it to external audiences. The workload on a particular campus might not be the right workload for all campuses. The best workload might have to be customized to accommodate individual faculty members. We need some creativity in that description. If we do not provide a matrix then one will be provide for us and it might not be the most instructive matrix. Hamilton will be our advocate. That is very different from a cheerleader. Informed enthusiasm carries weight. Hamilton needs this information from faculty. Specifically, an understanding of what is this campus, what is the essence of UAF. This needs to be in a couple of crisp sentences or bullet that can distinguish this campus and, therefore, help to distinguish the specific needs of this campus. The comparison internally among campuses will not be beneficial. We have to be together in this effort. A definition of our unique role is something he really needs, and an understandable discussion of faculty productivity. Losing touch with the community is a more difficult issue. There appears to be a momentum away from our responsiveness to the community. He understands it is a result of competition for ever decreasing numbers of dollars. Given the remarkable fiscal crucible through which this institution has passed it really stands in very good stead. What we have fought so hard to keep alive in times of difficulty, Hamilton needs now for us to help him define for external audiences the way we take this university forward. Recapitalization of faculty is the theme and it will be a tough sell in Juneau. Students come to a university to meet faculty. The best of our faculty stays at universities to meet students. All of the buildings, all of the programs, all of the recruiting, all of the marketing, and all of the budgets don't mean a thing unless we are providing to our students the quality education they signed up for. It is well within our grasp and it needs to remain our prime commitment. It is part of the final matrix of our excellence. Have we satisfied and even exceed the expectations of students who have placed their trust in us by coming to our university? Are the programs that attract them likely to remain in place for the full four to seven years they are likely to be with us? Do those programs meet their needs and do they prepare them for some life work whether that be in education, service or research? Access to faculty, access to quality faculty, access to a robust and stable faculty ultimately needs to be the hallmark of this university. Students come not for the building but to be taught. Hamilton needs help in making this central theme understandable and supportable within this state. David Musgrave agreed that one of the bases of a university is where the students meet the faculty. As a graduate student back in the '70s this was a place to join research. If we place our primary emphasis on the relationship between students and faculty it leaves out some of the research. Hamilton indicated they were not mutually exclusive and that part of the quality and opportunity of the university is our research. Jean Richardson said the package we are selling to each other is that UAF is a very special place. Here you have the opportunity to work closely with faculty. All it takes is that you are involved and interested. You have a lot of opportunities you don't have at other schools. At UAF all that is needed is interest. D. Dana Thomas - Provost's Faculty Associate for Academic Development & Assessment. Dana has two assignments as the provost's faculty associate. One is continuing our progress toward full implementation of the Outcomes Assessment Program--what we refer to as Educational Effectiveness. The other assignment is in the area of Faculty Development. The UAF policy on educational effectiveness includes assessing four areas: 1) student information, 2) core curriculum, 3) certificate and degree programs, and 4) out-of-class learning. Included in the agenda today is a motion to appoint an ad hoc committee on out-of- class learning. That is one of the most difficult areas. As soon as the group is appointed Dana will meet with them and give them ideas for a direction to go in. A major push this year will be in the area of getting assessment plans put in place for all of the certificate and degree programs. We have been working on this for the past two years. We started with a group of eight programs. Now we need to make a significant push and bring them all on line over the next year. It will be quite a push for establishing and maintaining outcomes assessment programs across the campus in preparation for the university-wide accreditation review in the year 2001. In the area of Faculty Development Dana has good news. Money has been dedicated within UAF and from UA statewide to reinvigorate faculty development. This year it targets instructional technology. Dana has been working with the Instructional Technology Development Center in the library to establish some workshops. This summer Dana started using a smart classroom for his own classes. There are educational sessions for individual faculty or groups to acquaint you with the facilities from Chris Lott in the library. The way Dana used the instructional technology is to use a live computer feed. He also used the new projectors (overhead) and recording video equipment. Another thing Dana has done is to put his syllabus on the web. He also intends to put his lecture notes on the web as well. The next area will be to establish a news group, discussion group, or list serve for his students to discuss homework problems. This will facilitate discussion among the students. In this regard they are establishing specific workshops to assist faculty in working with technology. This Saturday, September 19, they will have a workshop on putting your syllabus on the web. Dana also encourages Banner training coming up on September 23rd. Dana will be asking for input for a speaker on faculty development that will come to all three campuses. He wants to bring someone from outside of instructional technology that faculty want to hear. Please call him or write him on email at FFDLT@uaf.edu. Janice Reynolds commented on the need to bring along facilities up to the level to be able to use the technology in the classrooms. Most of our classrooms need more electrical outlets in better locations. Harikumar Sankaran asked if faculty can receive some of this money in the way of grants. Dana indicated there are limited funds and the answer is probably no, but he hopes it will expand next year. There will be a travel grant program for outcomes assessment. They have funded five faculty to go to outcomes assessment training, seminars, workshops or their own conferences that had substantial sessions or workshops on outcomes assessment. Linda Curda said it was wonderful that there is money back in faculty development. She also asked about the workshops for the rural Senate members. A second point: how do UAF courses going up on the web relate to the Western Governor's University? Dana indicated he did not know but that Jim Stricks is working on that connection. IV Governance Reports A. ASUAF - J. Richardson ASUAF is just now starting up again and has had one meeting. At the end of last year they were recognized by the Coalition of Student Leaders as the most active student government in the state. ASUAF has applied to the Technology Board for a student web server. They were funded but ASUAF has cut their computing department. They are looking for someone to administer the student web server. They have just gotten their appointees to the Technology Board approved. She is working on getting student representation on Senate committees. They are working on the Northwestern Leadership Conference in Oregon. Topics will include the impact of distance delivery on higher education. The Coalition of Student Leaders met recently. They elected Mary Stasenko from NWC, Josh Hunter from UAA, Josh Horst from UAS, and Jean as representatives to the System Governance Council. ASUAF is also working more collaboratively with the Graduate Student Organization. They are also setting up a Student Governance Retreat during the next Board of Regents meeting. B. Staff Council - B. Frey Beverly Frey was not available for a report. C. President's Comments - M. Schatz Madeline's written report is in the agenda. She added to her written report the informational item that if anyone has questions about actions of the Senate in the past, all Senate policies are now on the web. You can access it by going to the Governance and the Faculty Senate web page. Everything that has been passed by the Senate since 1988 is on the web. It is listed by topic and by meeting. V Public Comments/Questions - none VI Consent Agenda A. Ratify Resolution of Appreciation for John P. Keating approved by the Administrative Committee May 20, 1998 This was resolution was ratified with the approval of the agenda. The UAF Faculty Senate Administrative Committee passed the following on May 20, 1998: RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR JOHN P. KEATING WHEREAS, John P. Keating began his academic career in higher education with a B.A. degree in the Classics and Philosophy (1961) and a M.A. degree in Philosophy (1962) at Gonzaga University; and WHEREAS, John P. Keating continued with a M.S.Th. degree in Theology (1968) at the University of Santa Clara; and WHEREAS, John P. Keating continued with a M.S. degree (1971) and a Ph.D. degree (1972) in Social Psychology at Ohio State University; and WHEREAS, John P. Keating then joined the Academe as an Assistant Professor of Psychology at the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington; and WHEREAS, John P. Keating further engaged himself in the academic life of the University of Washington by gaining joint appointments as an Adjunct Professor of the Institute of Environmental Studies (1975) and as a Faculty Associate in the Comparative Religion Program (1976); and WHEREAS, John P. Keating became an Associate Professor of Psychology (1977) and Professor of Psychology (1990); and WHEREAS, John P. Keating then began his administrative career by becoming the Vice-Provost and Dean of Branch Campuses (1990) for the University of Washington; and WHEREAS, John P. Keating then became an Alaskan, a tenured faculty member of the UAF Department of Psychology, and Provost of the University of Alaska in 1994; and WHEREAS, John P. Keating has, throughout his academic career, demonstrated a commitment to academic instruction through the offering of numerous courses at both the undergraduate and graduate level, serving on graduate committees, and giving presentations as guest lecturer; and WHEREAS, John P. Keating has, throughout his academic career, demonstrated a commitment to academic research through extensive scholarly publications and technical reports in the field of psychology, public presentations, invited speeches, participation in panel discussions, and the receipt of numerous grants and contracts; and WHEREAS, John P. Keating has, throughout his academic career, demonstrated a commitment to academic service through broad participation in university and community affairs and participation in professional societies; and WHEREAS, John P. Keating has shared with UAF and all Alaskans his boundless energy, zest for life, and enthusiasm for the academic enterprise; and WHEREAS, John P. Keating has encouraged his colleagues through his open door policy and genial personality; and WHEREAS, John P. Keating will now become Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin at Parkside in 1998; and WHEREAS, The faculty of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, through its Faculty Senate, wishes to acknowledge the outstanding contributions to higher education and intellectual development of John P. Keating, UAF faculty member and provost; now THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the UAF Faculty Senate acknowledges and proclaims to all that John P. Keating has rendered outstanding service to the faculty, staff, students, and administration of UAF and to the citizens of Alaska, and hereby expresses its deep appreciation. Signed: John D. Craven, 1997-98 UAF Faculty Senate President Signed: Madeline F. Schatz, 1998-99 UAF Faculty Senate President May 20, 1998 **************** VI New Business A. Motion to establish an Ad Hoc Committee on Unit Criteria, submitted by the Administrative Committee Madeline indicated that we have some unit criteria coming through the Senate and we need to establish a committee. Three faculty volunteered and Madeline will appoint the others. The motion was approved without opposition. MOTION PASSED ============== The UAF Faculty Senate moves to establish the membership on the Ad Hoc Committee on Unit Criteria consisting of one member from each of the following Senate committees: Curricular Affairs, Faculty & Scholarly Affairs; Graduate & Professional Curricular Affairs; Faculty Development, Assessment, and Improvement; and Service Committee. Alexandra Fitts, Curricular Affairs John Olson, Faculty & Scholarly Affairs Michael Whalen, Graduate & Professional Curricular Affairs Faculty Development, Assessment, and Improvement Service Committee EFFECTIVE: Immediately *************** B. Motion to establish an Ad Hoc Committee on Out-of-Class Learning, submitted by the Administrative Committee Dana Thomas indicated that this would be a challenging committee. The first step is to identify their priorities for evaluation of out- of-class learning. The possibilities are endless. The basic concept is that students receive some portion of their education outside the formal classroom. This institution is having some educational impact on them that goes beyond their individual classes. We want to have a sense of what that impact is and how we might want to change what we are doing to improve it. One example is the use of study groups. Nationally we know that students that are involved in study groups do better not only in class but in life. Other examples might be how students living in dorms compare to those that live off campus. We can look at out-of-class research experiences. We need to define what is important in education for out-of-class learning and what we want to assess in that regard. Madeline indicated that this committee should be faculty driven. The motion was approved without objection. MOTION PASSED ============== The UAF Faculty Senate moves to establish an Ad Hoc Committee on Out-of-Class Learning. Membership will consist of: Maynard Perkins, Northwest Campus John Fellerath, Student Services Jean Richardson, ASUAF Rick Goeb, Athletics & Recreation James Bicigo, Theatre/Music/Arts Lisa Lehman, Library EFFECTIVE: Immediately RATIONALE: UAF's Evaluation Of Educational Effectiveness Policy includes an Evaluation of Out of Class Learning-- "An important element of a student's overall education is learning that occurs outside of classes. Therefore, an evaluation of activities and student support services will be conducted." This evaluation should be faculty driven. *************** C. Motion to accept the proposed Regents' Policy and University Regulation 09.99.00--Recreational and Intercollegiate Athletics Harikumar Sankaran moved to postpone action on this motion until the next meeting. Larry Duffy asked about a speaker to explain what the policy change is about. The motion to postpone passed and a speaker will be invited to address the issue at the next Senate meeting on October 12. MOTION PASSED ============== The UAF Faculty Senate moves to postpone action on the proposed Regents' Policy and University Regulation 09.99.01--Recreational and Intercollegiate Athletics until the October 12, 1998 meeting. EFFECTIVE: Immediately *************** D. Motion to accept the proposed Academic Calendar 1999- 2000 as submitted by the Registrar's Office, submitted by Administrative Committee Madeline said the biggest issue with the calendar is that the Board of Regents has mandated a make-up day for the Alaska Civil Rights Day. In order to fit that in we have to give up the study day between the end of classes and final exams. Cliff Lando asked about the constitutionality of the Senate passing something in contradiction to its own policies. He also asked why this impacted the fall semester. Cliff then moved to send this to Curricular Affairs for consideration and recommendation. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION PASSED ============== The UAF Faculty Senate moves to send the motion on the 1999-2000 Academic Calendar as presented by the Registrar to Curricular Affairs for their consideration and recommendation. EFFECTIVE: Immediately *************** E. Motion to amend Section 3 (Article V: Committees, Permanent) of the Bylaws, submitted by Administrative Committee Ron Gatterdam introduced the three motions. The first motion deletes the University-wide Promotion & Tenure Committee from the Senate bylaws. By the United Academics contract it is no longer a permanent committee of the Senate. The contract calls for governance to suggest names to the provost. It then becomes a committee of the provost. The second motion and third motion deal with changes to the UAF Policy and Regulation book. There are many more changes that need to be made, however, these motions allow the committees to get started so we can proceed with the mandated reviews. The second motion changes the title of the section of the regulations. The third motion deals with the procedure to be followed by governance to provide a list of names to the provost. Cliff asked for clarification on the Senate committee. This motion would dissolve the committee as it exists now. The first motion passed without objection. MOTION PASSED ============== The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend Section 3 (Article V: Committees, Permanent) of the Bylaws by deleting E.1. (The University Wide Promotion and Tenure Committee) and renumbering the remaining sections as appropriate. EFFECTIVE: Immediately RATIONALE: Procedures for retention, promotion, tenure, and post tenure review will be determined by union contract. The current contracts do require a MAU Peer Review Committee but the Senate's role is only to submit a slate of names for this committee. The MAU Peer Review Committee is not structured as a Senate Committee. The Senate's role in the evaluation process will be delineated in ensuing motions. *************** F. Motion to amend the title of Section IV of the UAF Faculty Appointment and Evaluation Policies and Regulations for the Evaluation of Faculty, submitted by Administrative Committee This motion changes the title of the section to include post-tenure review. The motion passed with no objection. MOTION PASSED ============== The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the title of Section IV of the UAF Faculty Appointment and Evaluation Policies and Regulations for the Evaluation of Faculty as follows: [[ ]] = Deletion CAPS = Addition IV. [[Consideration of faculty]] EVALUATION PROCESS for RETENTION, promotion [[and/or]], tenure, AND POST TENURE REVIEW EFFECTIVE: Immediately RATIONALE: The above is contract language and is consistent with the intent of this section. *************** G. Motion to amend the UAF Regulations for the Evaluation of Faculty, Article IV. B., submitted by Administrative Committee Ron introduced the motion and described the process of selecting names for the evaluation committees. It is the responsibility of governance to present a list of names to the provost. The first part of the motion would create a seven-person committee to handle promotion and tenure. A second committee would be struck in exactly the same manner to handle the pre- and post-tenure review. The third committee is a committee for ACCFT. Ron asked for a friendly amendment to present the list to the provost who will select the committee OR COMMITTEES. What this involves then is how to provide names to the provost. This is quite different from the existing procedure. This procedure ties the university-wide committees to the peer review committees. Each unit peer review committee would select one of its members to serve on each of the committees. This would provide approximately 15 nominees. There would then be an election by all members of the peer unit committees to select seven members. Larry Duffy asked why the number seven. This was done because the contract allows the provost to select seven members. It is the intent that the provost select all seven members. The difference in this procedure is that representation would come from peer review units rather than colleges/schools. John Yarie asked about members voting twice--once as a member of their peer review unit and once as a member of the university-wide committee. Ron indicated that the tradition has been to abstain from voting on the university-wide committee on those candidates they voted on at the peer review level. Ron Illingworth spoke on the third paragraph on the ACCFT member list. This process is patterned after the Regional Review Process which is required by their contract. The difference is that this year the review process will go through UAF. Another difference is that ACCFT allows United Academic members to sit on their promotion and tenure committee. ACCFT does not have a pre-tenure review process and the post-tenure review process stops at the dean level. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION PASSED ============== The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend Section IV. B. (Faculty with Academic Rank) of the UAF Faculty Appointment and Evaluation Policies and Regulations for the Evaluation of Faculty as follows: [[ ]] = Deletion CAPS = Addition B. Faculty with Academic Rank 1. Criteria and Eligibility. A record of continuing effective performance shall be expected [[with emphasis on the record of achievement since the latest promotion in rank]]. PROCEDURES, [[P]]performance criteria and requirements [[for eligibility for promotion and/or tenure]] are set forth in THE APPLICABLE UNION CONTRACTS, UAF Faculty Policies, [[Chapter IV,]] and in policies of the Board of Regents and the regulations of the University system currently in effect and as they may change. 3. d. [[Constitution and Operation of University- wide Promotion and Tenure Committee. The University-wide Promotion and Tenure Committee will be composed of twelve representatives; three from the College of Liberal Arts (one each from education, humanities, and social sciences); three from the College of Science, Engineering and Mathematics (one from each area); three from the College of Resource Development and Management (one each from the schools of management, agriculture and land resources management, and mineral engineering; and one each from the School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, Alaska Cooperative Extension and College of Rural Alaska. (Revised by the Senate and Approved by the Chancellor 3/26/97) Additionally, the chair of the unit peer review committee for each candidate or another committee member designated by the chair will sit as an ad hoc, non-voting member of the university-wide committee during the review of candidates from that unit. The chair of the unit peer review committee or a designee may participate in the discussion of the candidate's application for promotion or tenure and will present the file to the university-wide committee. (Revised by Senate and Approved by the Chancellor 10/21/91) Each college's/school's representative to the university-wide committee will be elected by the faculty of that college/school during the spring semester. One alternate will also be elected. Terms of service on the committee will be three years, with the terms being staggered so that continuity between committees is maintained. All representatives must be tenured and hold the rank of either associate professor or professor. The committee shall elect a chair from its membership. The committee shall establish operating rules and procedures in a public meeting and file these with the Chancellor's Office. Voting members of the university-wide committee shall not serve on any committee, or have input at any other level of review, related to promotion or tenure. The discussion regarding a candidate's file shall be held in executive session, unless the candidate requests an open meeting. The voting process shall be conducted in such a manner that the public may know the vote of each person entitled to vote.]] CONSTITUTION AND OPERATION OF THE UNIVERSITY-WIDE PEER REVIEW COMMITTEES. (1) FOR THE PURPOSE OF EVALUATION FOR TENURE AND/OR PROMOTION OF MEMBERS OF THE UNITED ACADEMICS BARGAINING UNIT, A LIST OF THE NAMES OF SEVEN TENURED UNIT MEMBERS WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE PROVOST WHO WILL SELECT THE COMMITTEE OR COMMITTEES. EACH UNIT PEER REVIEW COMMITTEE MAY NOMINATE ONE OF ITS MEMBERS TO SERVE. THE LIST WILL BE DETERMINED FROM THOSE NOMINEES BY VOTE OF ALL FACULTY WHO SERVE ON UNIT PEER REVIEW COMMITTEES. FACULTY SHALL REMAIN ON THE LIST FOR A TERM OF TWO YEARS WITH THE TERMS BEING STAGGERED. NO SPECIFIC PEER REVIEW COMMITTEE CAN BE REPRESENTED BY MORE THAN ONE PERSON. A FACULTY MEMBER MAY NOT STAND FOR PROMOTION DURING THE TERM OF APPOINTMENT TO THE LIST. (2) FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRE OR POST TENURE EVALUATION OF MEMBERS OF THE UNITED ACADEMICS BARGAINING UNIT, A LIST OF THE NAMES OF SEVEN FACULTY MEMBERS WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE PROVOST WHO WILL SELECT THE COMMITTEE OR COMMITTEES. EACH UNIT PEER REVIEW COMMITTEE MAY NOMINATE ONE OF ITS MEMBERS TO SERVE. THE LIST WILL BE DETERMINED FROM THOSE NOMINEES BY VOTE OF ALL FACULTY WHO SERVE ON UNIT PEER REVIEW COMMITTEES. FACULTY SHALL REMAIN ON THE LIST FOR A TERM OF TWO YEARS WITH THE TERMS BEING STAGGERED. NO MORE THAN ONE FACULTY MEMBER ON THE LIST CAN BE A MEMBER OF ANY SPECIFIC PEER REVIEW COMMITTEE. A FACULTY MEMBER MAY NOT STAND FOR POST TENURE REVUE DURING THE TERM OF APPOINTMENT TO THE LIST. (3) FOR THE PURPOSE OF EVALUATION FOR TENURE AND/OR PROMOTION OF MEMBERS OF THE ACCFT BARGAINING UNIT, A LIST OF THE NAMES OF NINE FACULTY MEMBERS WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE PROVOST WHO WILL SELECT THE COMMITTEE OR COMMITTEES. THE LIST WILL BE SELECTED FROM THE TENURED FACULTY IN THE ACCFT BARGAINING UNIT BY VOTE OF THOSE FACULTY. FACULTY SHALL REMAIN ON THE LIST FOR A TERM OF TWO YEARS WITH THE TERMS BEING STAGGERED. A FACULTY MEMBER MAY NOT STAND FOR PROMOTION DURING THE TERM OF APPOINTMENT TO THE LIST. THE PROVOST WILL APPOINT TWO MEMBERS FROM THE UNITED ACADEMICS UNIVERSITY- WIDE PROMOTION/TENURE COMMITTEE TO SERVE ON THE ACCFT PROMOTION/TENURE COMMITTEE. [[e. Candidate Review ]] EFFECTIVE: Immediately RATIONALE: Procedures for retention, promotion, tenure and post tenure review will be determined by union contract. The current contracts do require a MAU Peer Review Committee but the Senate's role is only to submit a slate of names for this committee. Section B.3.d. specifies the derivation of that slate of names. The MAU Peer Review Committee slate is based on unit peer review committees in the belief that, while there may be modifications to the contract mandated procedures, unit peer review committees in some form will remain in future instantiations. This basis, rather than that of college/school, removes the slate selection from the vagaries of administrative reorganization (over which the Senate has no authority) while retaining a slate that represents a cross section of the University. We recommend that the provost should appoint all seven faculty on the lists (for (1) and (2)) to the respective committees. We also recommend that a faculty member who has taken part in a decision at the unit peer review level abstain from voting at the MAU peer level. It is the intent tradition dictates this practice. We further realize that other sections of the policy need to be revisited at a later date. *************** VII Committee Reports A. Curricular Affairs - G. McBeath A meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, September 29 at 10:30 in Wood Center Conference Room B. B. Faculty & Scholarly Affairs - J. Yarie The committee is looking at the development of a faculty handbook for UAF. They have been discussing clean up and/or changes to the promotion/tenure guidelines. The committee will meet again on Monday, September 28 at 2:30 in Wood Center Conference Room A. C. Graduate & Professional Curricular Affairs - M. Whalen The committee has nothing to report. A meeting is schedule for Tuesday, September 22 at 3:00 in the Chancellor's Conference Room, 330 Signers' Hall. D. Core Review - J. Brown No report was available. E. Curriculum Review - C. Basham No report was available. F. Developmental Studies - J. Weber A meeting is schedule for Thursday, September 17 at 11:30 in Wood Center Conference Room A. G. Faculty Appeals & Oversight - J. Ruppert No report was available. H. Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement - D. Porter No report was available. I. Graduate School Advisory Committee - B. Watkins No report was available. J. Legislative & Fiscal Affairs - S. Deal The committee met on September 9th and will meet again on September 16. Work for the fall semester will focus on bringing political candidates to the UAF campus. If anyone is interested in joining the committee they are welcome. K. Service Committee - K. Nance No report was available. L. University-wide Promotion & Tenure - H. Sankaran 1997-98 Annual Report A report was attached to the agenda. With this new scheme of selecting a university-wide committee it will be very important for members of the committee to do a thorough job of reading the files. Last year's committee feels strongly that the administration should not oppose recommendations from the committee. The following addendum was distributed at the meeting. Addendum to the University-wide Promotion & Tenure Committee 1997-1998 Annual Report In the past, the tenure and promotion files of members belonging to ACCFT followed the regional review process. This process called for a UAA University-wide committee augmented by tenured CRA faculty representing the work-load of the candidate. Starting 1997-1998, the CRA faculty were required to route their files through the UAF University-wide Promotion & Tenure Committee. Based on the interim procedure developed by our committee and approved by the Senate, one candidate was evaluated for tenure and promotion to associate professor. This candidate received recommendations in support of promotion and tenure at all levels. M. Ad Hoc Committees 1. Ron Gatterdam--Union/Senate Relations--the committee sent out a survey to other universities. They have received some responses and will have a report at the next meeting. VIII Discussion Items - none X Members' Comments/Questions John Olson asked about the academic calendar and strongly felt that the length of the semester not be shortened. XI Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 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.