I The meeting was called to order by President Schatz at 1:35 p.m. A. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Bandopadhyay, S. Allen, J. Barnhardt, C. Bantz, D. Bruder, J. Bohman, A. Conti, E. (& L. Duffy) Barnhardt, R. Corti, L. Blurton, D. Curda, L. Bruce, L. Dinstel, R. Chukwu, G. Fitts, A. Copus, G. Gatterdam, R. DeLaca, T. Grigg, S. Doak, P. Illingworth, R. Gimbel, J. Johnson, T.. Gold, C. Lando, C. Gregory, G. Luick, B. Hamilton, M. Manfredi, R. Hardy, C. McBeath, G. Herrmann, M. McLean-Nelson, D. (A. Savinova) Hills, S. Mortensen, B. Ivey, P. Nance, K. Kilpatrick, D. Perkins, M. (J. Mason) Kaplan, L. Porter, D. Layral, S. Reynolds, J. Lee, J. Sankaran, H. Leguard, J. Schatz, M. Lindahl, M. Sonwalkar, V. Long. K. Weber, J. McLean, D. Whalen, M. Moessner, V. White, D. (& L. Duffy) Murphy, E, Yarie, J. Norris-Tull, D. Zilberkant, E. Redman, W. Reichardt, P. Schmahl, M. MEMBERS ABSENT: Stephens, D. Bader, H. Swazo, N. Basham, C. Tape, W. Deal, S. Thomas, D. Musgrave, D. Wadlow, J. Norcross, B. Walsh, D. Olson, J. Wells, D. 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. - Dean, CLA Tremarello, A - University Registrar B. The minutes to Meeting #85 (February 8, 1998) were approved as distributed via e-mail. C. The agenda was approved as amended with the addition of President Hamilton speaking, postponing the guest speaker, Diane McLean, until a later date, and a resolution added to New Business. Also noted were the two approved actions of the Chancellor. II Status of Chancellor's Office Actions A. Motions approved: 1. Motion to approve the MFA degree program in Art. 2. Motion on status of students in post-baccalaureate teacher licensure programs. B. Motions pending: 1. Motion prohibiting faculty from receiving a graduate degree from UAF. III. President Mark Hamilton - Madeline Schatz indicated that her written comments were distributed prior to her meeting with President Hamilton. Some of those remarks were based on assumptions she made that were incorrect. Her support as expressed in that report, however, is still there. President Hamilton did not inform the UAF Senate leadership of his decision to appoint UAS Chancellor Marshall Lind to the position of UAF Chancellor until just prior to making the public announcement. Madeline Schatz, Ron Gatterdam, and John Craven went into the meeting armed with information on how the faculty could be of help in choosing the new Chancellor and were very surprised at the announcement. At that meeting Madeline Schatz asked President Hamilton to come and speak to the UAF Faculty Senate. President Mark Hamilton then addressed the Senate and public concerning his recent appointments of the UAF and UAS Chancellor positions. He felt the discussion should be guided by a response to the questions. He made the best call he could in doing what he felt was best for the institution. That is, both UAF and the university system as a whole. Clearly, upon further review he wishes that he would have done it differently. He absolutely believes that it was important to get it done quickly for the best interest of the institution. It is hypothetical at this point but had Chancellor Wadlow announced her retirement as of July of next year, he is absolutely certain that he would have called for a formation of a search committee. The ability to consult the faculty without that formality was something that he stampeded by and would have changed were such a thing to come up again. Jerry McBeath asked three questions. The first was whether he had considered candidates other than Marshall Lind. The second questions was if he considered making an interim appointment. The third was when he decided to select John Pugh as Chancellor at UAS he advertised a consultation process involving faculty and students that seems to be refuted by several Juneau colleagues. President Hamilton indicated that he had: 1) considered other people for the position, 2) talked with these people, and 3) talked with other people about them. There was a certain amount of self selection associated with this in that some did not want to serve. He did give some thought to an interim scenario but was very much affected by the fact that an interim individual would not have the same kind of weight as a non-interim position. And he did not think it was in the best interest of this campus or the university system as we are trying very hard to remove ourselves from an ugly decade and start to move forward. It was his judgment that an interim was not an appropriate solution. At Juneau there was significant pressure that if Fairbanks is important enough to move quickly, then we are no less so. Having had by that time some advice from the UAS Faculty Council's officers he tried to talk with as many individuals there as he could. At that stage of the game there were two candidates for internal reassignment at that campus. He discussion those two individuals with current and elected faculty leadership, as well as members of the administrative staff. Carol Gold said her concern had to do with the lack of faculty involvement. Faculty involvement is part of the historical tradition of universities. She has not heard anything that said this crisis is so critical that it couldn't wait even a month to set up some search committee, do an internal search, at least talk, get it out, get it open. She then asked if there was any chance of changing the positions into interim. President Hamilton indicated that the role of committees in this discussion are advisory and they do not make decisions. Committees for the sake of advice and consultation are quite useful and he intends to use those to the degree possible. Carol Gold asked if President Hamilton was willing to make a commitment that if these issues came up again he would make no more appointments without faculty and community involvement, without a search committee; that he understood that this is not the way we do things, and that we have a commitment that this is not the way decisions will be made in the future. President Hamilton indicated that he would be very foolish if he ignored the fact that the essential part of the university disapproved. The message is very clear and he is thusly instructed. Roxie Dinstel indicated that the purpose of a search committee is not always to select. A committee involves a certain "buy in" and unfortunately President Hamilton pulled that "buy in" out. One of the concerns that she has is that Chancellor Lind will have a tough row to hoe. Usually when you have a committee involved in the selection they get excited about the selection. There is some "buy in" because they have had an opportunity to say what they think. That, unfortunately, will be one of those tough things for both the Chancellor here and in Juneau to beat. President Hamilton thinks that people will judge individuals by their actions and he has full confidence that Dr. Lind will gain confidence and support in very short order. It was clear to him that the decision had to be made quickly. He believes that the speed of it overweighed other possibilities. There clearly was an interim step that would have made this easier without being disingenuous. It would have involved more "buy in." But again he stands by the person, and is not so adamant about standing by the process, (which is exactly what is being questioned). He is informed by that question. He gave up a lot and inadvertently made it more difficult for Dr. Lind. President Hamilton has great confidence that Dr. Lind will perform in a manner that will meet with faculty approval. David Porter commented that there is no flagship campus in the country that has selected a Chancellor by a process like this. A Chancellor, in a professional sense, is the first among equals in many of the functions they have to do. There are administrative functions and there are professional functions. In those professional functions, if they are not first among equals, that is if they have not been vetted, their actions are not legitimate. They must make tenure, promotion, and other dismissal kinds of decisions. They do this as fellow professionals, not administrators reporting to the President or Regents. The stronger the University, the more that Chancellor or President must perform those functions as the first among equals. This is the underlying rationale for that, it's not just that you will listen to our advice and ignore it if you choose. Without that legitimization there is a serious long-term problem. An interim appointment avoids most of that. He concurred personally, completely, with the urgency of getting leadership in place quickly. David Porter went on to say that as he watched and listened to the material that is circulated, people really are pained. They have looked with great pleasure at the beginning of President Hamilton's incumbency. They are happy to see a person represent us outside effectively and with some charisma. He shares the skepticism about some of the products of the searches. Porter really wants to support President Hamilton, but in this case, he felt that Hamilton has punched us in the nose. It was in the face. No one wants to be whiners or complainers as we have blood down our chest, but we have it there. It's not fun. We can't do anything about it and we feel helpless about it. Porter indicated that he has a hard time in his present capacity as a faculty member to try to get people to come here, to represent to them that the people here understand what academic freedom is, and that when a program is going to be cut or something there will be a discussion about it. If we decide we don't like tenure, we will have a decision about it. He can't make that representation now to candidates that are coming. This is not just a politeness. If this were a flagship campus Hamilton would be censured. Porter feels terrible about it because he wants to see Hamilton succeed. He is desperate to see this campus do better and to see the people of Alaska have somewhere to send their top twenty percent, and this won't work. David Porter indicated that he listened to an interview of Dr. Lind's on the radio and if he had given that interview in any kind of public discussion he would be at the bottom of the list of candidates. Dr. Lind showed very minimal understanding of what this campus is about and what the central elements are. That, unfortunately, is a part of what is going to have to happen here. Porter felt very heartbroken about the process. It is a very unfortunate thing. Jerry McBeath asked what factors or emergency effects this campus that requires that we have a person in place immediately. President Hamilton thinks it is the entire atmosphere of budget related issues that have piled up over the decade. We have a significantly depleted faculty and administrative staff as a result of three years of mortgaging our human resource. We have a very real demand on the part of those legislators that are supporting us that we have immediate action and results in terms of good stewardship of the monies they intend to give us. Those were the primary issues. Jean Richardson gave a student perspective. She felt that students are a lot less disturbed by the appointment of Marshall Lind because they know that students throughout the system really like him. Students get the sense that this is the decision that they would have made if they would have been in the position. They see Hamilton's decision not as acting with disregard to their needs, but acting with the idea that he knows what the needs are. In the case of students, this is accurate. Maybe he over estimates his being in touch with the needs of the faculty. Some of the students see the President as being the executive officer who in times when action needs to be taken quickly, makes decisions on behalf of the whole university. If he makes the decisions we would have made, then he is doing his job right. If he chooses someone we hate, then he's not in touch. In this case, Richardson does not see a problem because she feels Marshall Lind will do a great job. Norm Swazo concurs with his colleagues here that think this decision to appoint a Chancellor is rather premature in the absence of some significant crisis of which they are aware. He does not think that Chancellor Wadlow's retirement creates such a crisis that we can not have an interim appointment pending a bona fide national search. We are certainly not saying that because it has been common practice to appoint a Chancellor through a national search that that is what you should do. We are saying that there are principles that are involved. Principles of due process, principle of shared governance, principles of equal opportunity in hiring, and principles of affirmative action in hiring. All of those principles have been bypassed by the decision made by President Hamilton without due regard for those who should be involved in this kind of decision. There is a resolution before the Senate that if passed will ask President Hamilton to make the appointments interim and move in the direction of a national search. Norm Swazo asked Hamilton to speak to the issue of the various principles mentioned. President Hamilton indicated that it is inherent in the nature of the method in which he made the decision that he has not paid the formal attention to those principles that would have been the result of a formal search process. That is quite clear. In terms of specifically violating his intention that it could only be a certain person, that was not part of the consideration. How to find the right person who understands this system and to move us forward is why an internal appointment was an immediate thought. Harikumar Sankaran indicated that he is willing to assume the decision that President Hamilton made is in the best interest of the university. But he has a doubt and it is a serious doubt. He is not sure that this particular action did not set a precedent to other administrators on campus to make unilateral decisions. President Hamilton did not believe that it set precedent and it is highly unlikely that we will run into a circumstance again where we are faced with the announced retirement of an official that is done so near the end of the school year. Typically we would have significant time and Hamilton assured the faculty that if Chancellor Wadlow's retirement been "I'm going to retire next year," he would have formed a search committee. John Gimbel indicated that if they did a search for an assistant professor and did it this rapidly without any discussion of diversity issues they would get into a lot of trouble. Gimbel asked if there were other candidates considered that met some sort of protected status such as gender, race, or ethnicity. President Hamilton indicated that one potential candidate would have met gender protection status. He was advised against that particular individual early on in the process. There was no candidate that would have met any ethnic protection that he is aware of. Madeline Schatz indicated that in her written comments she expressed her support of administration. Anyone who is in a governance leadership position has the opportunity to work closely with administrators and is able to find out what kind of people they are. While rumors are flying about, they have the opportunity to sit and talk to these people. Schatz was lucky to be involved in the hiring process of President Hamilton and one of the reason's she was in favor of his being hired is that he said he is always willing to look and see if he has done something incorrect, please tell him and he will take a look at it. She hears him doing that today. She still supports the administration. She does not support the way President Hamilton made this assignment, she does not approve of this process. Schatz does approve of the person he chose and thinks it is the best choice for the University. She also thinks that today we have been shown that President Hamilton is willing to listen to the faculty. She does not always side with the administration and fights vociferously for faculty, but she thinks we have in place a President who is willing to be educated. A. Comments from Chancellor Joan Wadlow - Chancellor Wadlow indicated that once again this year the Chamber of Commerce is organizing a delegation to fly into Juneau on March 22 & 23. The Board of Trustee of the University of Alaska Foundation will also be meeting in Juneau at the same time. So there will be a number of individuals and small groups meeting with the legislators emphasizing the importance of President Hamilton's $16.3 million budget request. There will be some one page briefing sheet distributed to individuals going to Juneau. The first publication is an update of Northern Catalyst. Chancellor Wadlow was asked by the Senate leadership to report on the status of the motion prohibiting faculty from receiving a graduate degree from UAF. She spoke to Mike Hostina and he will try to get it to the union leadership. By the time the Senate meets again we should have some completion on this matter. Finally, there have been questions and much interest in what authorization there will be for the use of the salary savings from RIP-3. As a consequence of the reception of the President in Juneau, they are assuming the salary raise obligations for FY00 will be fully met with new money. That will enable us to authorize recruitment of a number of positions. She is also optimistic about the prospects of the President receiving the full $16.3 million. In which case, there are funds requested to meet the traditional fixed costs. She believes we can authorize the use of even more of the salary savings than in previous years. The first year we used 40 percent and the second year only 25 percent. We fully expect to be able to use well over half. An announcement will be made later this week. Ron Illingworth spoke about the pending motion and how it affect the ACCFT membership. B. Comments from Provost, Paul Reichardt - Provost Reichardt had two comments about programs. The Board of Regents approved the program for Microcomputer Support Specialist. This was a collaborative program offered throughout the system, although it is a UAF program. There were question about whether it met NW accreditation approval. UAF received the okay from them to deliver this program. Reichardt provided an update on the administrative searches within UAF. The CLA Dean search is at the stage where the finalists have been identified and CLA will be conducting interviews shortly. The search for a Dean of CSEM is still at the application stage. They will begin reviewing applications on April 15. Reichardt met with Madeline Schatz and Ron Gatterdam to talk about a final faculty member for the search committee for the GI director. This committee will soon go to work. Based on a request by the senior faculty within the School of Management, he is working on a memo requesting a meeting with the faculty of the school to talk about an internal search for the Director of that school. Reichardt has directed the Interim Dean of CNRDM to hold discussion among the faculty about an organizational model for that college. They will then begin a search for a Dean. They are part way through the process of putting together a search committee for the Director of IARC. Dr. Akasofu is founding director until July 2000. This search will take some time and the search committee composition will probably have some variance with Faculty Senate policy. He will be working with the leadership of the Senate on this issue. Jerry McBeath asked about the structure of CNRDM and the search for a dean. Carol Barnhardt asked about the Acting Director of the School of Education. Reichardt indicated that it was on the scheduled for recruitment during the next academic year. Harikumar Sankaran asked about the chance that CNRDM would be reorganized. Reichardt indicated that at this time he was not in a position to initiate any change. Delena Norris-Tull indicated that there have been discussion between the President, the School of Education, Dean Kan, and the Chancellor about the organizational structure of the School of Education. She is concerned about the process that is being used to decide the structure for the SOEd. Reichardt indicated that it is important for faculty involvement in the process. He encouraged faculty to get in touch with him individually. C. Guest Speaker - Diane McLean, Intellectual Properties Manager - Postponed to a later Senate meeting. IV Governance Reports A. ASUAF - J. Richardson Jean Richardson reported that the most significant items that ASUAF is involved in relate to the legislature. They passed a resolution in support of President Hamilton's budget. They also sent five students to Juneau to hold discussions with members of the legislature. They also went in a group with alumni to offices of the legislators. They held a press conference discussion they support for Hamilton's budget. They are doing POM drives every Wednesday in Wood Center. ASUAF will be going to Juneau again for the next Board of Regents' meeting. B. Staff Council - B. Frey The following written report was distributed as a handout. UAF Staff Council Report, Meeting #106, March 2, 1999 Committee Reports: The Staff Training Committee is working hard on supervisory training sessions. The remaining sessions are: March 9 - Performance Evaluations at 10:00am, April 8 - How to keep Employee Performance Issues from Affecting your Performance at 10:00am and April 27 - Interviewer Strategies at 3:00pm. All sessions will be held in Wood Center Conference room C. Staff Training is also working on a combined Longevity Awards/Picnic program this year on May 13 at 1:30pm in the Wood Center Ballroom. Stay tuned for details. The Staff Affairs Committee introduced motions to approve the 2000-2001 academic calendar; and to require internal recruitment for positions for 5 working days prior to external recruitment. Both motions passed. Nominations for President-Elect for next year will be taken starting next month. Election is in May. Respectfully submitted, Bev Frey, President UAF Staff Council C. President's Comments - M. Schatz Madeline Schatz indicated that she had a report attached to the agenda. She wanted to add a couple of comments. She has sent a letter of support to Governor Knowles nominating Jean Richardson as Student Regent. She attended the Board of Regents' meeting in Juneau and expects to get a lengthy report out. The proposal on Common Course Level and Common Grading Policy was presented to the Academic Affairs Committee of the Board of Regents. V Public Comments/Questions - none VI New Business A. Proposed Resolution Regarding the Recent Appointment of UAF and UAS Chancellors. Jerry McBeath indicated that several hands went into the construction of this resolution. It follows the actions of President Hamilton in selecting the new Chancellor of UAF without any input from faculty, staff, or students and his identical process of selecting the Chancellor of UAS. After listening to President Hamilton today, McBeath did not feel that there needed to be any changes to the resolution. All we have seen of what President Hamilton has done is to override shared governance at the university system and in particular at UAF. McBeath believed that it is imperative that the Faculty Senate register its strong disapproval and objection to the process that the President has used in selecting our new Chancellor and the Chancellor at UAS. The resolution was presented and seconded by Sukumar Bandopadhyay. Susan Grigg spoke about the process and asked if a search needed to be a national one. Ron Illingworth did not concur with some of the comments made earlier. People he has spoken with applaud the rapidity of the appointment and believe we had nothing but losses facing us if this were delayed. They supported the President in the appointment of the person, although they recognized that it stood outside of what normally occurred in the past involving greater staff and faculty involvement. Illingworth felt we stand to lose prestige, budget, and faculty at this university if we were to have an interim Chancellor who would attempt to maintain status quo. He felt that the resolution did not reflect the opinion of all the faculty and voiced his strong opposition to the resolution. Larry Duffy spoke with faculty in the sciences and they felt that something had to be done to select a new Chancellor and they did not feel tied to tradition. There is mixed opinion out there and he did not know how he would vote. Ron Gatterdam indicated that he had made his opinion known over email but would like to set President Hamilton straight about the procedure he has followed. Gatterdam really likes the resolution except for the conclusion. He would like to see strong language to condemn the President's actions. Jerry McBeath indicated that President Hamilton said he would not make positions temporary that he has already made permanent. What we as a Faculty Senate can resolute is that certain conditions exist from our perspective and we can make recommendations as to how those situations we find unpalatable can be resolved. It is not our business to undo what the President has done; it is our business to take a stance as faculty and point out to the President where he has erred. McBeath felt that the President needs concrete resolutions and statements from the faculty to remind him on a regular basis that this institution has a long history of shared governance. The faculty he has talked with are up in arms over this action. They are extremely dissatisfied and despairing of where this institution seems to be headed. David Porter stated that chancellors have resigned in February rather frequently. This is not an emergency. The usual remedy is an interim appointment. An interim appointment is often done with very specific instructions. That would have been a very appropriate step here. What is not appropriate is a permanent appointment that was announced to governance minutes before it was made. Porter indicated that at any other institution if this action were to happen there would not just be a censure, it could not survive. This tells him that we are not a flagship campus. He thinks we are struggling to get there but we can not build a faculty on the professional standards if we don't say something. We need to move forward quickly but a permanent appointment is not the way to go. Clif Lando agreed with the first page of the resolution but is bothered by the last paragraph. He proposed the following amendment. "Therefore be it resolved that the UAF Faculty Senate strongly condemns the unilateral action of President Hamilton in appointing replacement Chancellors and demands that any future academic appointments be made in accordance with accepted academic standards." Susan Grigg supported the amendment and felt that it brought the resolution closer to the middle of the range. John Yarie felt that at this point in time we should not be passing this resolution. Jerry McBeath felt that the amendment was satisfactory. The amendment passed with 20 ayes and 1 nay. Terry Johnson indicated that he would vote again the resolution. He thought that the people who felt that the process was more important than the result have had an opportunity to express that to the President. He felt that we need to get on with life and not create an adversarial relationship at a time when we need a very unified university. Susan Grigg proposed a couple of small word changes to other paragraphs. The amendment passed. Jerry McBeath spoke against the spirit he felt was being expressed that it was going to make a great deal of difference in the faculty's relationship with Marshall Lind if we don't appear to be critical of him as he comes on campus. McBeath thought it was a highly mistaken notion regarding the relationships between administrators and faculty. He thinks Lind will move into this campus easily and will get along with everyone, but feels he is a person that respects only strength and forthrightness. When he doesn't see that on the part of faculty he will move ahead in whatever direction he believes it is essential for him as the President's best man. It is essential that the faculty speak and state what its views are and what its standards and its expectations are. If the faculty isn't clear then the faculty and the institution as a whole will suffer as a result. Janice Reynolds spoke in support of the resolution as amended. This is an internal document to the President and we can see from his response here that he and Chancellor Lind do take into account faculty opinion, but it has to be very clearly stated to them. If this faculty cares about being consulted it needs to express its opinion very formally. At this occasion this is our vehicle for doing so. This is what we have advisory process for. She thought we need to convey our opinion very clearly to them so that they will know and be advised by it in the future. This resolution does that. Ron Gatterdam did not feel that this would place us in an adversarial position at all, this simply puts on paper what both the leadership has said to the President and what the Senate has said to the President here today. Ron Illingworth stated that we had an opportunity earlier in the meeting to directly address the President with some of these issues. This resolution also serves as method of expressing our views. Roxie Dinstel has been involved in a director search and several faculty position hires and they are subjected to rules. She feels strongly that she could not handle her business in this manner and resents the fact that somebody else can. However, if we set up rules we should live by them. A roll call vote was taken and the resolution passed by a vote of 17 ayes, 7 nays, and 1 abstention. RESOLUTION =========== Whereas, as recognized by the policies of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), effective shared university governance is necessary for the sound administration of an institution of higher learning for the common good of the community, and Whereas, as recognized in AAUP policies, an effective system of shared governance is necessary to ensure that an institution of higher learning adheres to the principles of academic freedom with respect to academic matters in the classroom and in research, academic matters of institutional policy, and issues which are in the general public interest, and Whereas, as recognized by AAUP policies, in the search for chief administrative officers of institutions of higher learning, such as university presidents and chancellors, faculty should have a primary role in accordance with the long-standing principles of shared university governance, and Whereas, in order for a university to work toward the common good, faculty, staff, students, and stakeholders from the general public must be allowed to participate in the search for chief administrative officers of institutions of higher learning, such as university presidents and chancellors, as well as searches for other administrative officers, and Whereas when the appointment process for an administrative officer such as a chancellor ignores the long-established processes of shared university governance, that administrator virtually loses the ability to effectively govern the institution, Therefore be it resolved that the UAF Faculty Senate strongly condemns the unilateral action of President Hamilton in appointing replacements Chancellors and demands that any future academic appointments be made in accordance with accepted academic standards *************** B. Motion to amend Section 3, (ARTICLE V: Committees), E., PERMANENT, 8. of the Bylaws, submitted by Faculty Appeals & Oversight Ron Gatterdam introduced the motion and proposed an amendment to delete the paragraph concerning grade appeals. His reason was that the student dispute regulations are still before statewide and he wasn't sure this was in agreement with what is being planned. The current draft requires three faculty members, to serve as a committee in grade appeals cases, to be appointed by the dean. The amendment passed. The motion passed as amended. MOTION ======= The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend Section 3, (ARTICLE V: Committees), E., PERMANENT, 8. of the Bylaws as follows: [[ ]] = Deletion CAPS = Addition 8. The Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee shall be composed of two tenured faculty members, elected from each college/school and confirmed by the Faculty Senate. FACULTY APPEALS WILL BE DEALT WITH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROPRIATE UNION CONTRACT. THE COMMITTEE WILL ACT AS A POOL TO BE DRAWN UPON TO ACT AS THE UNITED ACADEMICS REPRESENTATIVES TO THE APPEALS BOARD. THE CHAIR OF THE FACULTY APPEALS AND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE WILL SELECT, FROM THE COMMITTEE, MEMBERS OF THE UNITED ACADEMICS BARGAINING UNIT WHO WILL SERVE ON THE PARTICULAR APPEALS BOARD. [[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 GRADE APPEALS, AS SPECIFIED IN THE UAF GRADE APPEALS POLICY.]] [[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 made 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: Deletion of the appeals subcommittees are a result of union negotiations and are now reflected in the new union contracts. The changes reflect the need to clarify the committee's role under the United Academic contract, Article 7.34.a. The addition of a hearing panel pool reflects activities of the committee stipulated by the UAF Grade Appeals Policy. **************** C. Motion on graduate transfer credits, submitted by Graduate & Professional Curricular Affairs Michael Whalen indicated that this motion came about as a suggestion from the Graduate School Advisory Council who were concerned about the fact that graduate students were not able to transfer more than nine credits within the UA system. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION ======= The UAF Faculty Senate moves that graduate degree credit will be transferable within the UA system and from any other accredited institution for courses where the student has received a grade of B or better with the following stipulations: up to 1/2 of all graduate degree credits may be transferred with no more than 1/3 of all graduate degree credits transferred from any other accredited institution outside the UA system. For use in a specific graduate program, the student's graduate committee must approve the transfer credit and it must be clearly indicated in the Graduate Study Plan and on the Advancement to Candidacy Form. EFFECTIVE: Immediately RATIONALE: UAF graduate students are currently prevented from transferring more than 9 graduate credits. This motion would change university policy to permit transfer of a higher proportion of graduate degree credits. The stipulations of this policy provide greater flexibility in transferring graduate credits especially from within the UA system. Currently there is no stipulation concerning the grade of graduate credits transferred to UAF. This motion would impose a minimum grade of "B" for all graduate transfer credits. Individual departments could have other standards that permit exclusion of some credit transfers. *************** D. Nominations for President-Elect Madeline Schatz read the following statement from Maynard Perkins. It gives me pleasure and hope for the Senate in knowing that capable people are willing to be recognized for their ideals and willingness to serve the University of Alaska Fairbanks. I hereby nominate Dr. Lawrence Duffy for the position of 1999-2000 UAF Faculty Senate President-Elect. There were no further nominations. Nominations will remain open until they are closed at the next meeting. *************** VII Committee Reports A. Curricular Affairs - G. McBeath A report was attached to the agenda. B. Faculty & Scholarly Affairs - J. Yarie C. Graduate & Professional Curricular Affairs - M. Whalen A report was attached to the agenda. D. Core Review - J. Brown A report was attached to the agenda. E. Curriculum Review - C. Basham F. Developmental Studies - J. Weber The following report was distributed as a handout. Minutes of The Developmental Studies Committee March 4, 1999, Chancellor's Conference Room Attending: Rich Carr, Jerah Chadwick, Richard Clausen, George Guthridge, Cindy Hardy, Marjie Illingworth, Ron Illingworth, Ruth Lister, Joe Mason, Greg Owens, Lisa Thomas, Jane Weber. The following items were discussed: Change of course number: DEVM 070 will now be listed as DEVM 105. This will aid students who are transferring coursework to or from the UAA campus, where this number is used. It will also allow students to count DEVM 105 as elective credit. It may also have the advantages of encouraging more students to sign up for this course prior to taking Math 107 (many now drop down into 070 from 107), and allowing students to receive funding for the course from such agencies as PIC. Jane has sent the paperwork on to Ron Illingworth, who has signed it and sent it on to Ralph Gabrielli for his signature. The committee approved this change unanimously. Tracking: Greg, Jane, and Kay have continued to work on hand-entering data from 1994, in our ongoing effort to track student success. Cindy, through a conversation with Steve Smith, who sent her to Mike Bates, found a person in Statewide, Colleen Abrams, who had the familiarity with the database needed to help streamline the process. Jane, Cindy, and Greg met with Colleen on March 2 and she was able to produce data for 1995 in a matter of minutes. (This was a little frustrating to Jane who had spent hours on a fraction of the same data.) Colleen has agreed to run statistics on the ten years of DEVM and DEVE classes from 1988-1998, tracking students from their entry point in the Developmental classroom to their completion of entry-level math and English. She will send this data to Greg, who will tabulate it in an intelligible form. Some questions arose about different numbering systems used at rural sites and for audioconference classes. Further, as we looked back at numbering systems used in the past ten years, we found an odd assortment of numbers that need to be accounted for. We will follow through on these. Marjie raised the question of tracking for DEVS classes. She reported that she has data for classes from 92-95, which she used in a previous research study. She will write down what she wants to know for 95 and beyond, and we will forward this to Colleen. Once we get the data and look at what we have, we need to project how what we learn will help us plan Developmental programs in the future. The data we have will be useful for Outcomes Assessment now, however. Ron reported that, at NADE, he heard a lot of discussion of accreditation and that accrediting agencies want to know both what programs plan and how they find out what they've done. Tracking students is a start towards that end. Colleen has agreed that we could run similar data once a year until we determine how many years we need to evaluate. What we hope is to be able to show consistent success for students who move from developmental classes to freshman-level classes. PRAXIS: We had a brief discussion of the need to set up classes that will help Education students prepare for the PRAXIS exam-the new qualifying exam for students entering the Master's program for teacher certification. Students will be tested in three areas: reading, writing, and math. We need to get a copy of the test and look at it. George reported that he's taken a sample test and found two wrong answers on the writing portion, so there may be problems with the test. AQSI: Several members of the Developmental Studies Committee are on the Senate Ad Hoc Committee on AQSI: Jerah Chadwick, Joe Mason, Cindy Hardy, Jane Weber, and Kay Thomas. The task of the Ad Hoc committee is to decide how the university can best respond to the needs of students in school districts to prepare for the test- especially those students who fail repeatedly and who may turn to the university as their only resource. This committee has met once and will meet again March 9 to formulate a plan. Jane is contacting Hillary Davies, head of the UAA Math Department, to see what her department is doing. Ron suggested contacting Toni Croft, chair of Developmental Studies in Anchorage, to see how that department is responding. Marjie suggested that a study skills component be included in any planned class sequence. Jerah requested that we fax information on AQSI to him. Jane reported that Carol Barnhardt has been talking to the Fairbanks school district, as well. All this is in the formative stage; we will keep working on this as a plan takes shape. Developmental Science: A Developmental Science course will be offered in the fall both through TVC and through the RASMN grant in CRA. This has not come before the committee for approval, since it is being offered as a special topics course, though it will eventually come through the committee if it becomes a regular course and needs an approved course number. This course will be taught through TVC at U-Park and will have two sections taught through the CRA grant, one by audio conference and one at a remote site. Marjie will send information on these courses to the advising center. NADE: Ron and Marjie will bring a summary of sessions they attended at NADE to our next meeting. Ron reported that he noticed many higher-level administrators from community colleges and other post-secondary institutions showing an interest in Developmental Studies in conjunction with Assessment. The next meetings will be March 25, 1-2 p.m. and April 22, 1-2 p.m. G. Faculty Appeals & Oversight - J. Kelley A report was attached to the agenda. H. Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement - D. Porter A report was attached to the agenda. I. Graduate School Advisory Committee - L. Duffy A report was attached to the agenda. J. Legislative & Fiscal Affairs - S. Deal No report was available. K. Service Committee - K. Nance No report was available. L. Ad Hoc Committees A report was attached to the agenda. IX Discussion Items - none X Members' Comments/Questions Larry Duffy asked about the discussion concerning college reorganization. He indicated that it was hard to come to these meetings and have an issue put before you and its the first time to hear of it because everyone is so tight with all the information. 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.