The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #138 on September 18, 2006:


The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend Section 3, (Article V, Committees, Standing) of the Bylaws by deleting E. 4., the Faculty Research Oversight Committee.

[[  ]]  =  Deletion
CAPS = Addition

Sect. 3       (ART V:  Committees)

E.               The standing and permanent committees of the Senate are: 


           [[4.      Faculty Research Oversight Committee

The Faculty Research Oversight Committee shall review all classified and proprietary proposals, grants, and contracts according to the guidelines of the UAF policy concerning classified and proprietary research and advise the chancellor of their compliance or lack thereof with university policy. 

The committee will publish an annual report on the status of classified and proprietary contracts, grants and proposals at UAF to the Faculty Senate. The Faculty Research Oversight Committee will offer changes to the UAF policy as needed through periodic reviews occurring no less than once every 5 years.

Membership on the committee shall be limited to 9 senators, with no more than 2 members being from the same unit.  A Facilities Security Officer shall be an ex-officio member of the committee.  The committee will also include someone from the Office of Sponsored Research and a designee of the chancellor as ex-officio members.  Committee membership must broadly represent the university community.]]

              EFFECTIVE:              Immediately

RATIONALE:            University Regulation (R10.07.02) promulgated by President Hamilton on February 3, 2005, states that an MAU which intends to engage in classified or proprietary research shall have a standing advisory committee, and that the chancellor will appoint up to three tenured faculty members to the committee.   Chancellor Jones has appointed a committee for UAF that follows the requirements specified in University Regulations.  Therefore, it is no longer necessary to have a Faculty Senate committee to serve in an oversight capacity. 



The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #138 on September 18, 2006:


The UAF Faculty Senate moves to accept STAT 200 as a Mathematics Literacy component of the Core Curriculum and that it be included in the list of courses that will satisfy the Core Math requirement.  

              EFFECTIVE:              Fall 2007

RATIONALE:            The CORE Review Committee has received and unanimously passed a request from the Department of Mathematics to make STAT 200 (Statistics) available to students as a CORE course.

The Philosophy of the CORE Curriculum states:

Advanced literacy in mathematics implies a solid grasp of quantitative reasoning and appreciation of mathematical applications. Most important is acquiring the knowledge necessary for informed judgments on the uses of mathematical and statistical interpretations confronting us in everyday life

We observe that statistical interpretations have become the stuff of daily news, especially in political matters significant to citizenry.  STAT200 will be a welcome addition to the CORE Curriculum as we prepare students for the 21st century.


[[  ]]  =    Deletions
CAPS = Additions

Baccalaureate Core

Courses used to meet a science or mathematics core requirements may also be used to satisfy the major and/or minor degree requirements.  Other core courses may not be used to meet any other requirements for a degree.

Requirements                                                                                    Credits

Mathematics (3 credits) ……………………....………..………….            3

Complete one of the following:

MATH 103X - Concepts and Contemporary Applications  of Mathematics (3)
MATH 107X - Functions of Calculus* (4)
MATH 161X - Algebra for Business and Economics (3)

* No credit may be earned for more than one of MATH 107X or MATH 161X.

OR complete one of the following:*

MATH 200X, 201X, 202X, 262X, 272X

*Or any math course having one of these as a prerequisite


The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #138 on September 18, 2006:


The Faculty Senate moves to modify "Guidelines for the Evaluation Process for Administrators" (Senate Meeting #99, February 5, 2001; amended Senate Meeting #111, October 28, 2002) to include (1) the Dean of Libraries and (2) the Vice Chancellor for Research in the "Group A" list of administrators.

              EFFECTIVE:              Immediately

RATIONALE:            The Vice Chancellor for Research supervises research faculty via various institute directors, while the Dean of Libraries supervises library faculty.  Both positions make budgeting decisions affecting faculty and staff at UAF.  These responsibilities are consistent with those of the "Group A" list of administrators.  They are therefore hereby added to that list for administrator review.


Group A Administrators

Executive Dean, College of Rural and Community Development
Dean, School of Natural Resources and Agricultural Sciences
Dean, School of Fisheries & Ocean Sciences
Dean, Graduate School
Dean, College of Engineering & Mines
Dean, School of Management
Dean, School of Education
Dean, College of Liberal Arts
Dean, College of Natural Sciences & Mathematics
Dean of Libraries
Vice Chancellor for Research



The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #138 on September 18, 2006:


The UAF Faculty Senate moves to suspend the "Group B" Administrative reviews scheduled for 2006-2007, pending discussion by the Provost Council of recommended changes in the review process.

EFFECTIVE:              Immediately

RATIONALE:            The Faculty Appeals & Oversight Committee (FAOC) recently forwarded a motion to the Administrative Committee for review and which was referred to the FAOC for further discussion.  The substance of the motion requires further discussion between the UAF administration and the FAOC so as to arrive at a mutually satisfactory process for evaluation of Group B administrators.  The Administrative Committee recommends the Provost and the FAOC work together to arrive at a reasonable process before action by the Senate is taken on a revision to the current policy.



The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #138 on September 18, 2006:


The UAF Faculty Senate moves to modify the University of Alaska Fairbanks' document, "Policies and Regulations for the Appointment and Evaluation of Faculty" Chapter IV, D, 1,b, (3), as follows:

 (3)      Professor.  Those faculty awarded the rank of professor at the university shall exemplify the attainment of performance and achievement consistent with a high standard of excellence. 

The faculty member shall present a record of continuing sustained excellence which demonstrates that the candidate is recognized for contributions to knowledge in the discipline; is recognized by peers and students as an excellent teacher; contributes to the overall effort and reputation of the university through appropriate extension of knowledge and discipline-related service, within the context of the faculty member's proportionate responsibilities as identified in his/her annual workload distribution agreement.  A promotion/tenure peer review committee (unit or university-wide) shall recommend promotion to the rank of professor only if a majority of the committee rates the faculty member's tripartite (or bipartite) areas of activity as "very good" or "excellent" (ratings, in order of improved performance, being "UNSATISFACTORY" "satisfactory," "good," "very good," and "excellent"). 

EFFECTIVE:              Immediate, Upon Chancellor Approval

RATIONALE:            There is some limitation in the categories for ranking or evaluating candidates in annual review and review for promotion and tenure in Board of Regent's policy and university regulation. Current policy provides for four levels: "satisfactory," "good," "very good," and "excellent".  In the view of the Unit Criteria Committee of the Faculty Senate, these categories do the University and individual faculty members a disservice because under the current system, the lowest rank is Satisfactory. The current scheme does not provide a formal mechanism for indicating that a candidate's performance in any area is unsatisfactory.  It has been suggested that the level "unsatisfactory" should be added.