Sheri Layral
	312 Signers' Hall
	474-7964   FYSENAT

For Audioconferencing:  Bridge #:  1-800-910-9620
				Anchorage:  561-9620

Monday, November 13, 1995
1:30 p.m. - 3:35 p.m.
Wood Center Ballroom

1:30	I	Call to Order - Eric Heyne				5 Min.
		A.	Roll Call
		B.	Approval of Minutes to Meeting #58
		C.	Adoption of Agenda

1:35	II	Status of Chancellor's Office Actions		  	5 Min.
		A.	Motions Approved:  none
		B.	Motions Pending:  none

1:40	III	Remarks by Chancellor J. Wadlow  			10 Min.
		Questions						5 Min.

1:55	IV	Governance Reports
	A.	ASUAF - J. Hayes					5 Min.
	B.	Staff Council - M. Scholle	 			5 Min.
	C.	President's Report - E. Heyne 				10 Min.
		(Attachment 59/1)
	D.	Faculty Alliance meeting - D. Lynch			10 Min.
		(Attachment 59/2)

2:25	V	Public Comments/Questions 				5 Min.

2:30	VI	Consent Agenda  					5 Min.
		A.	Resolution to confirm the Faculty Appeals
			& Oversight Committee membership 
			(Attachment 59/3)
		B.	Resolution to confirm the Chemistry Department 
			Peer Review Committee (Attachment 59/4)
		C.	Resolution to confirm the Education Department 
			Peer Review Committee (Handout)
		D.	Motion to modify the deadline schedule for 
			add/drop, withdrawal, credit/audit, and 
			freshman low grade reports (Attachment 59/5) 

2:35	VII	New Business
	A.	Motion to amend the policies on course 			5 Min.
		compression and course approval (Attachment
		59/6), submitted by Curricular Affairs
	B.	Motion to amend statement on Interdisciplinary   	5 Min.
		Studies (Attachment 59/7), submitted by 
		Curricular Affairs
	C.	Motion on Amorous Relationships (Attachment 		5 Min.
		59/8),  submitted by Faculty Affairs
	D.	Resolution to endorse Systemwide Governance 		5 Min.
		Council Constitutional changes (Attachment 59/9), 
		submitted by Eric Heyne

2:55	VIII	Committee Reports 					30 Min.
	A.	Curricular Affairs - Dana Thomas 
	B.	Faculty Affairs - Barbara Alexander
			(Attachment 59/10)
	C.	Scholarly Activities - Paul Layer  
	D.	Developmental Studies - Ron Illingworth
	E.	Faculty Appeals & Oversight - Diane Bischak 
			(Attachment 59/11)
	F.	Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement - 
			Joan Moessner (Attachment 59/12)
	G.	Legislative & Fiscal Affairs - Michael Jennings
	H.	University-wide Promotion/Tenure - John Keller
			1994-95 Annual Report (Attachment 59/13)

3:25	IX	Discussion Items
	A.	Search Committee for CRA Dean		 	  	5 Min.
		(Attachment 59/14a-d)
	B.	Report on the Faculty Work Load Model of Banner -
		D. Lynch  (Attachment 59/15a-b)

3:30	X	Members' Comments/Questions			 	5 Min.

3:35	XI	Adjournment

NOVEMBER 13, 1995


On Oct. 17 the Systemwide Governance Council met to consider, 
among other things, fundamental changes to its constitution.  Those 
changes are included as an attachment to a motion under New 
Business requesting that the Senate endorse the changes.  Last year 
President Read was directed to pursue changing the SGC because it 
was not working well, and to divert some of its funds to the Faculty 
Alliance, which was working well.  These changes are in that 
direction.  Moreover, they reduce the number of scheduled meetings, 
change the membership to include Faculty Alliance Members, and 
make it clearer that the SGC is not a decision-making body nor the 
next "higher" governance organization to the Alliance.

On Oct. 26 and 27 the Faculty Alliance met for two days in 
Anchorage, the second day with a number of administrators including 
President Komisar and Provost Keating.  President-elect Lynch's 
report details much of that discussion, so I won't repeat it.  I second 
his comment that the Alliance is functioning well, allowing us to 
communicate with our peers at the other MAU's, and giving us a more 
effective voice with Statewide and the Regents than we would have 
alone--though that's not saying much.

We had the benefit at this meeting of a letter summarizing the 
Faculty Affairs Committee's recommendations regarding the latest 
draft of Regents policy on sexual harassment and dispute resolution.  
A new draft, the one that will actually go before the Board for 
approval, will be available for comment early next week.  Contact 
the Senate Office or Patty Kastelic's office in Statewide for a copy.

The third draft of another set of Regents academic policies, 
including such matters as transfer among MAU's and maximum 
number of credits for degrees, is currently available on the 
Systemwide Governance home page, and a hard copy is available in 
the Senate Office.  You are encouraged to review individually all 
Regents policies and provide comments to Alliance members or 
directly to Statewide.  We have at least two Senate committees 
looking at each section of policy as it comes down the pike, but 
there's no reason to limit ourselves to official committee reviews.

Several very important faculty issues are coming up for Regents' 
review this year, including tenure (a report is due in June), workload 
(our President is convinced that we need to increase our student 
credit hour/faculty member ratio, and some regents want faculty 
members to be more "accountable"), and indirect compensation 
(Patty Kastelic will speak about this issue at our December 
meeting).  In addition, we have to decide what to do about the 
compensation policy, in response to suggestions for implementation 
that Provost Keating will offer in the next few weeks.  We have 
tentatively scheduled a meeting for May 13, to make up for the 
canceled October meeting.  By that time we will have to have 
produced positions on tenure, workload, indirect compensation, and 
the compensation policy--plus whatever else is thrown at us in the 

NOVEMBER 13, 1995

Donald F. Lynch, Ph.D., Pres. Elect, UAF Faculty Senate

My overall impression is that the nine members of the Faculty 
Alliance worked together very smoothly as a team indicating that 
the three Faculty Senates are in agreement on serious current 
issues.  Cheryl Mann of Anchorage is an excellent Chairperson and 
good speaker, and Richard Hacker, Southeastern, is a master at the 
art of amiable persuasion as is Phil Slattery of Sitka.  Eric Heyne, 
myself, and Mike Jennings represented the views of the UAF Faculty 
Affairs committee regarding the proposed Grievance Policy, well 
described by the commentary prepared by Mike Pippenger.  Pat Ivey 
was extremely helpful to the Alliance.

The Alliance members felt strongly that additional faculty 
consultation is vitally necessary as part of the deliberations which 
occur in the Statewide Academic Council which is composed of the 
Provost, UAF, Provost UAA, the Dean of Academic Affairs, Southeast.  
The Alliance also felt that the Regents at their last meeting had 
invited faculty consultation, d this matter was to be taken up by 
Cheryl Mann in contact with Regent Virginia Breeze.  The idea here 
was some form of faculty participation in the deliberations of the 
Regents' Academic and Student Affairs Committee.

Friday, October 27th, was a meeting between the President, Provost, 
UAF, and Patty Kastelic, Human Relations, and the Provost UAA.  The 
lengthy discussion covered numerous topics, and the Faculty 
Alliance under Cheryl Mann's guidance sought to go through the 
issues raised by the three Senates concerning the proposed new 
Academic policies, Grievance and Termination for Cause policy, 
maximum limits on credits allowed in a degree program, and 
requests for further elucidation as to the intent various policies.

While not wishing to quote anyone in particular, my conclusions 
regarding the direction of Regents' and Administration policies are 
as follows:

- recognizing that the Governor's budget committee has determined 
that funding for the University of Alaska is not critical to the future 
of the state, the University should seek ways and means of 
increasing tuition income while maintaining or reducing direct 
instructional costs.  Proposals suggest a possible ten percent 
reduction in state support for the University, or about 16 million 
dollars out of the current 167 million.  Several means are seen as 
appropriate to achieving this objective:

	a.  the development of the Electronic Classroom, using CD-
Roms, teleconferences, and E-Mail for courses in specific 
specialties on a statewide basis.  These might include courses in 
Finance, a statewide BBA program, and the successful Medical 
Records Management distance delivery courses presently in 
existence in Southeastern.  The idea is that the University can afford 
one good specialist in many fields, but not one for each Campus.  
Such courses might also be offered nationally and perhaps even 
internationally.  The Provost UAF has available funds for the 
development of such courses which have a broad potential student 

	b.  improved coordination of academic programs among all 
three Campuses to insure that new programs are not duplicated, and 
that existing programs and degree requirements are coordinated and 
(perhaps standardized-Dfl comment).

	c.  restrictions on the maximum number of credit hours 
required for a degree program to insure that students can in all but 
professional degrees graduate with 132 credits.  There is a two fold 
fear here: first, legislatures in some states, e.g. Florida, are 
mandating such limitations, and the same may happen in Alaska; and, 
second, faculty in some states have increased program credit hour 
requirements beyond that which is reasonable.  (Dfl comment: there 
appears to be no evidence that U of A faculty have done so; existing 
professional degrees, including Music, will be approved as they stand 
since they meet national requirements.)

	d.  development of some means of insuring that courses in 
degree programs are in such a sequence that students can achieve 
their degrees in four or four and a half years.  There have been 
consistent complaints that this is currently not the case in 
unspecified programs.

	e.  pursuing as yet unspecified policies to reduce the amount of 
time students take to complete a degree program.  A federal study 
using data from 1988 and 1989 showed that students who declared 
majors in those years in a select set of disciplines failed to 
graduate within four and a half years, and most took very much 
longer.  This study suggests, but does not prove, that the University 
of Alaska is encouraging students to use federal student loans and 
grants for entirely too many years.  (Dfl Comment: alliance members, 
including yours truly, vigorously attacked these data as inadequate 
and deceiving.)

	f.  instituting a compensation program which will mandate 
that faculty must receive a better than satisfactory evaluation 
every year in order to receive any raise.  There will be no more 
across the board raises.  The system adopted in August and 
reaffirmed in September is designed to reward those who bring in 
federal grants and those who achieve increases in enrollments.  
Evidently, the idea here is that faculty are to be evaluated on an 
individual basis regarding both proposal successes and credit hours, 
with instructional achievements weighted by subject, course level, 
etc.  The actual compensation proposal is a two part matter: one 
percent and one point six percent.  The 1% is for retention, 
promotions, and market based salary adjustments in certain areas.  
The faculty receiving these raises are to be excluded from those 
evaluated for raises under the 1.6% funds.  In addition, faculty with 
a high success rate in proposals may get their raises from federal 
rather than state funds, and about twenty percent of the 1% money 
may be available for other raises.  In short, the total amount 
available is greater than just 1.6% of last years faculty salary 
budget.  But rewards are to be based on proposals submitted and 
funded, and total enrollments.

	g.  to the maximum degree possible, develop common core 
curricula (General Education Requirements) and major requirements 
among all three campuses so that students can easily transfer 
courses from one University of Alaska institution to another.  In 
pursuing this objective, policies are being developed which 
potentially will standardize General Education Requirements.  This 
seems to be a particular concern of Southeastern and is motivated 
by a desire to ease student transfers within the system.

	h.  implementing Academic Policies, Regulations, and 
Procedures which will achieve the above objectives.

General Conclusions

1.  The meeting with the administration was on occasion somewhat 
adversarial in nature, but the general tone was informational, not 
personal.  Statewide is approaching academic matters from the 
viewpoint of national trends, developing federal policies, and 
probable decreases in state funding for the University.  The Faculty 
Alliance is approaching academic matters from the viewpoint of the 
three senates.  These two are not in all cases in agreement, and, 
therefore, there are conflicting viewpoints.

2.  There appears at this moment to be a general desire on the part 
of three Regents to have better communication with the Faculty.  
However, there is agreement that there should not be a Faculty 

3.  In working towards greater inter-Campus academic coordination, 
the role of the Statewide Academic Council will probably become 
more significant.  It has replaced the position of Statewide 
Academic Vice President .

4.  As a Faculty, as a Senate, and as the Administrative Committee, 
we simply must take these new proposed policies quite seriously.  
They are part of a whole and must be considered in that fashion, not 
in bits and pieces.  For this reason, the work of the Faculty Affairs, 
Scholarly Affairs and Curricular Affairs Committees achieves very 
particular importance.  We may expect the new policies, as hopefully 
modified in the review process, to be adopted at the February 
meeting of the Board of Regents.

5.  the relegation of the University of Alaska to a priority lower than 
that of primary and secondary education, the prison system, police 
and fire protection, and other essential government activities, does 
not bode well for future state funding given a potential decrease in 
total general fund revenues of five hundred million dollars.  This is a 
problem which should be seriously addressed by the Senate 
Legislative and Financial Affairs Committee.

6.  Political Action on the part of faculty groups should, given the 
potential seriousness of the state funding decrease, be a significant 
matter for consideration.  The Anchorage Campus already has an 
organization to perform this function, as does the unionized faculty.  
We in Fairbanks are not part of any similar organized effort, 
although individuals certainly do have an impact on the political 

Some Quotations from Regents Policy, third draft:

Each MAU has the primary responsibility for ensuring that the 
educational needs of its assigned service area are met, utilizing not 
only its own educational resources but also those available 
throughout the University of Alaska. (P.10 .02 01)

Duties of the Systemwide Academic Council include:

F.  coordinate academic programs throughout the University of 
Alaska and facilitate student progress toward degree completion or 
other educational goals; and

G.  review, revise, and administer faculty personnel policies and 
procedures. (P. 10.02.02)

Statewide Instruction Programs

To provide access without unnecessary duplication of programs, 
each MAU will have the responsibility of serving both local and 
statewide constituencies.  Each MAU will contribute to the 
integrated instructional program of the University of Alaska through 
practices such as:

A.  sharing intellectual and material resources;

B.  collaboration among units in teaching, research, and public 

C.  establishing common curricula or reciprocity agreements for 
meeting general education core requirements and core requirements 
for similar academic degrees and certificates; and

D.  coordinated planning to assure orderly and efficient changes in 
educational programs in response to shifts in the needs of the state 
and its people.

The University of Alaska will use distance delivery methods to 
ensure maximum educational opportunities for all Alaskans, 
regardless of geographic residence.  (P. 10.04.01) Note: the verb will 
should be understood as the older military shall, i.e. this is a direct 

The maximum numbers of credits which may be required... 
	Bachelor's degree 	132 credits 
	Master's degree		 45 credits 
Exceptions to minimum or maximum credit hours may be made on the 
recommendation of the Chancellor and approval of the President. 
Note: this means according to informal statements that the current 
programs in engineering and music will be approved.

It is in the interest of both the student and the University of Alaska 
that its universities accept in transfer as much credit as is 
appropriate to the student's new degree and graduation 
requirements....the maximum articulation possible among degree and 
certificate programs will be sought.  (P.10.04.05)

A.  2.  A student who has completed the general education 
requirements at one University of Alaska university or community 
college and transfers to another University of Alaska university or 
community college will be considered to have completed the general 
education requirements at all University of Alaska universities and 
community colleges. (P. 10.04.05)

'The major administrative units of the University of Alaska will 
cooperate in the establishment and delivery of educational courses 
and programs to promote access, minimize duplication of effort, and 
ensure the effective use of the University of Alaska's resources.  
Inter-MAU use of faculty expertise, specialized equipment, and 
library collections will be promoted, and collaborate with other 
colleges and universities will be sought. (P.10.04.10)

Comment on proposed Grievance policy

Mike Pippenger correctly argued that the policy confuses a dispute 
with a grievance.  I argued that the mediation section will not work.  
I argued forcibly against the Termination for Cause procedure.  The 
new revised policy is to contain a definition of Cause and should be 
available in a week or so.  I am concerned that this policy should 
also contain other relevant policies, for example, procedures for 
reprimands and the procedures by which a termination for cause is 
established.  This set of policies seems directed as much towards 
Classified employees as faculty.  Indeed, at one point, the statement 
was made that faculty in practice would not fall under the three day 
response rule, but that classified employees would.  I suggest the 
Grievance Policy also be reviewed by other governance groups if this 
is not already being done.

NOVEMBER 13, 1995


BE IT RESOLVED, That the UAF Faculty Senate moves to confirm 
additional membership on the Faculty Appeals and Oversight 
Committee membership indicated below:

	Dale Feist, Professor, CNS
	David Stone, Professor, CNS
	Joseph Niebauer, Professor, SFOS
	Brian Paust, Associate Professor, SFOS
	Mark Tumeo, Associate Professor, SOE
	Jonah Lee, Professor, SOE

NOVEMBER 13, 1995


BE IT RESOLVED, That the UAF Faculty Senate moves to confirm the 
Chemistry Department Peer Review Committee  for the academic 
year 1995-96 indicated below:

	Don Button, Chemistry
	Larry Duffy, Chemistry
	Dan Jaffe, Chemistry
	Rainer Newberry, Geology
	Channon Price, Physics
	David Shaw, Chemistry
	Richard Stolzberg, Chemistry

	EFFECTIVE: 	Immediately

	RATIONALE:	According to UAF Regulations, units with less 
		than seven tenured faculty must have their Unit Peer 
		Review committees augmented with additional 
		appropriate faculty.  Presently the Chemistry Department 
		has six tenured faculty, one of whom is serving on the 
		University-wide Promotion and Tenure Committee.  Thus, 
		Chemistry has only five faculty eligible for serving on 
		the Unit Peer Review Committee this year.  

NOVEMBER 13, 1995


The UAF Faculty Senate moves to modify the deadline schedules for 
add/drop, withdrawal, credit/audit, and freshman low grade reports 
as indicated below:

[[    ]]  =  deletion
CAPS  =  addition

1.	Change Last Day to Add  from [[End of 1st week of instruction]] 
2.	Change Late Add from [[Until the 4th Friday after classes 
3.	Change Drop  from [[Until the end of the 2nd week of 
4.	Change Freshman Low Grade Reports  from [[4th week of 
5.	Change Withdrawal for Freshman and Non-degree Students  
	from [[Until the 6th Friday after classes begin]] to:  6TH FRIDAY 
6.	Change Withdrawal (for all other students)  from [[Until the 4th 
	Friday after classes begin]] to:  4TH FRIDAY AFTER 1ST DAY OF 
7.	Change Faculty Initiated Withdrawal  from [[Prior to the 4th 
	Friday of classes]] to:  4TH FRIDAY AFTER 1ST DAY OF 
8.	Change Change from Credit to Audit  from [[Subsequent to the 
	3rd Friday after Instruction begins]] to:  FOLLOWING 3RD FRIDAY 
9.	Change Change from Credit to Audit After 3rd Friday of Class 
	(freshmen and non-degree students)  from [[Same deadlines as 
	Withdrawal but instructor's signature required]] to:  UNTIL THE 
10.	Change Change from Credit to Audit After 3rd Friday of Class 
	(all others)  from  [[Same deadlines as Withdrawal but 
	instructor's signature required]] to:  4TH FRIDAY AFTER 1ST DAY 

Late withdrawal and late total withdrawal remain the same as 
printed (Until the Last Day of Instruction).  

Note:  First day of instruction identified in catalog.

	EFFECTIVE:	Fall 1996

	RATIONALE:	To simplify the placement of dates and 
		make the calendar more comprehensible.

NOVEMBER 13, 1995


The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the policies on course 
compression and course approval by adding the following:

	Any course compressed to less than six weeks must be 
	approved by the college or school's curriculum council.  
	Furthermore, any core course compressed to less than 6 weeks 
	must be approved by the Core Review Committee.  

	Any new course proposal must indicate those course 
	compression formats in which the course will be taught.  Only 
	those formats approved will be allowed for scheduling.  

	EFFECTIVE:	Fall 1996

	RATIONALE:	There is no existing institutional policy 
		establishing an approval process for offering specific 
		courses in a compressed format.  This lack of an approval 
		process has caused some faculty to question the 
		appropriateness of some compressed courses.  The 
		proposed policy change implements an approval process 
		using the existing governance structure and places the 
		burden of review at the college/school level.  A more 
		general review by the Core Curriculum Committee is 
		required for proposals to compress core courses because 
		of their common use across disciplines.

		Courses currently offered in a compressed format were 
		not granted blanket approval so that individual colleges 
		and schools could review their current compressed 
		offerings.  The proposed policy does not prohibit 
		colleges/schools from granting such a blanket approval 

NOVEMBER 13, 1995


The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the statement on 
Interdisciplinary Studies as currently listed in the UAF Catalog with 
the following noted changes:

[[    ]] =  Deletions
CAPS =  Additions

	Interdisciplinary Studies is a program available to UAF 
students within the associate of applied science, bachelor of arts, 
bachelor of science, and bachelor of technology degree options.  The 
interdisciplinary program option provides flexibility to students 
with well-defined goals who do not fit into one of the established 
majors offered by the university.

	A student may submit his/her proposal for an interdisciplinary 
program upon completion of 15 credits at UAF [[and preferably 30 
credits (for the associatešs degree), or 60 credits (for the bacheloršs 
degree) prior to graduation.]], AND HE/SHE SHALL HAVE AT LEAST 30 
proposed curriculum must differ significantly from established 
degree programs at UAF and will require evidence that the necessary 
facilities and faculty are available to ensure an approximation of a 
normal undergraduate degree.  All general requirements for the 
[[A.A.S.,]] B.A., B.S., or B.T. degree must be met.

	In developing an interdisciplinary proposal, the student should 
specify the degree (A.A.S., B.A., B.S., or B.T.), include an explanation 
of how the proposed program differs substantially from established 
UAF programs, and a discussion that current UAF resources are 
adequate to meet the requirementS of the proposed program.  (A 
DISCIPLINARY DEGREE).  The student then obtains an advisory 
committee of at least three faculty members from the appropriate 
committee will appoint a chair, review the proposed program, select 
a degree title in concert with the student, and make its 
recommendation.  Applicants then submit to the Provost their 
proposal for the program they wish to pursue, specifying the degree, 
proposed curriculum WORKSHEET, and rationale.  THE DEGREE IS 

	Students interested in pursuing an interdisciplinary A.A.S., 
B.A., B.S., or B.T. degree, or who want to explore this as a degree 
option, can contact the Academic Advising Center to receive 
assistance in finding faculty advisors and developing their 
curriculum proposal.

	EFFECTIVE:	Fall 1996

	RATIONALE:	Clarification of procedures and requirements 
		for interdisciplinary degrees.  

NOVEMBER 13, 1995


The UAF Faculty Senate moves to adopt a policy statement on 
"Consensual Sexual (Amorous) Relations between Faculty and 
Students" as formulated by the AAUP Council.

The UAF Faculty Senate so moves with the understanding that 
adoption of the AAUP statement does not preclude amendments 
consistent with the Faculty Affairs Committee's "Report on 
Rationale and Options."

				AAUP Policy Statement 


	Consensual Sexual Relations Between Faculty and Students

	Sexual relations between students and faculty members with 
whom they also have an academic or evaluative relationship are 
fraught with the potential for exploitation.  The respect and trust 
accorded a professor by a student, as well as the power exercised by 
the professor in an academic or evaluative role, make voluntary 
consent by the student suspect.  Even when both parties have 
initially consented, the development of a sexual relationship renders 
both the faculty member and the institution vulnerable to possible 
later allegations of sexual harassment in light of the significant 
power differential that exists between faculty members and 

	In their relationships with students, members of the faculty 
are expected to be aware of their professional responsibilities and 
avoid apparent or actual conflict of interest, favoritism, or bias.  
When a sexual relationship exists, effective steps should be taken to 
ensure unbiased evaluation or supervision of the student.

	EFFECTIVE:  Upon Chancellor Approval 

			* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *




	Chancellor Joan K. Wadlow has solicited the UAF faculty's 
engagement in the task of developing and adopting during the current 
academic year a policy on consensual sexual (amorous) relations 
between faculty and students (hereafter, CSAR).  The Chancellor 
cites the 1995 AAUP statement that "sexual relations between 
students and faculty members with whom they also have an 
academic or evaluative relationship are fraught with the potential 
for exploitation."  "Such amorous relationships," Dr. Wadlow 
observes, "even with so-called voluntary consent by the student, 
greatly increase the chances of abuse of power or a perception of 
abuse.  In either case, the university and individuals suffer."

	The Chancellor's statements serve to underscore the following 
implicit claims:

	(1)  that faculty have a moral responsibility  to the university 
community at large; i.e., that in addition to acknowledged rights  as 
teachers and scholars in the academic institution as such, certain 
obligations  accrue to faculty in their exercise of the duties of 
office (faculty), obligations in the performance of office in relation 
to a community wherein there may be occasions of misperception 
about when one acts "as private person" and when one acts "as 
faculty person"; 

	(2)  that there are undesirable/unwanted consequences of 
CSAR, that these consequences are perceived to be 
undesirable/unwanted by the university  community taken as a moral  
community, in which community faculty are governed in conduct by a 
professional  ethic, notwithstanding any abiding personal  ethic; 

	(3)  that this professional ethic includes a comportment of 
respect  for students, which comportment in practice eschews any 
exploitation, harassment, or discriminatory treatment of students 
(see AAUP Statement on Professional Ethics, 1987); 

	(4)  that the moral responsibility invested in the faculty office 
is such that the discharge of that responsibility is subject to 
measures of accountability;

	(5)  that CSAR is an issue of moral probity in particular 
because such relations otherwise transpose the faculty person into a 
situation of legal  accountability under existing university policy 
and state statutes governing sexual harassment; 

	(6)  that faculty, in their moral autonomy (i.e., voluntary, 
intentional action) share in a causal  responsibility for the 
occurrence of undesirable/unwanted consequences of CSAR (in a 
situation of actual litigation for cause, prosecution would likely 
seek legal remedy under mens rea doctrine, i.e., there was on the 
part of the faculty person a combination of "voluntary conduct" and 
"foresight of consequences").


	General Comments:

	The UAF Faculty Senate may decide to forego entirely any 
explicit policy statement on CSAR, notwithstanding the request of 
the Chancellor.  Should the Senate choose to develop such a policy, 
then a policy statement on CSAR may be written either as (a) a 
component of existing UAF Sexual Harassment Policy, or (b) a policy 
distinct from the Sexual Harassment Policy.  

	Options include:

(A)  permitting CSAR, with the expectation that the faculty person 
will have taken steps to eliminate any present and/or future 
academic-contextual conflict of interest and assure unbiased 
evaluation of the student with whom there exists a CSAR.  This 
option seeks to avoid infringement upon a private relation 
understood to be protected as a matter of civil right, i.e., right to 
privacy and right to associate (a point of view upheld by federal 
court decision in 1983, in Naragon v. Wharton, and upheld in a 
judgment rendered by the U>S> Supreme Court in 1984, in Roberts v. 
United States Jaycees).  This option also presumes that such CSAR 
are undertaken legally, i.e., the student has attained to the age of 
consent established by state statute and has indeed freely consented 
to such a relationship.

(B)  Alternatively, the UAF Senate may adopt a policy that speaks to 
CSAR only in those cases in which the faculty person as teacher "is 
in a position to evaluate the student, and, in other cases, when a 
substantial risk exists that the student would feel pressured to 
consent to the relationship."  [P. DeChiara, "The Need for Universities 
to Have Rules on Consensual Sexual Relationships Between Faculty 
Members and Students."   Columbia Journal of Law and Social 
Problems, 21:2(1988), pp. 137-160.]  Distinctions may or may not be 
made here between "undergraduate" student and "graduate" student, 
the prohibition extending (i) only to the former group, (ii) to both 
groups, or (iii) to a student regardless of level of enrollment but 
who is in an "evaluative" academic relation (teacher, supervisor) 
with the faculty person.  At issue here is some assessment of a 
CSAR "degenerating" into a situation of sexual harassment.  This 
strategy acts preemptively on the part of the potential victim of 
sexual harassment, i.e., the student, accounting for the various 
procedural and social barriers to effective and successful grievance.

(C)  Alternatively, the UAF Senate may adopt a policy which 
expressly prohibits all CSAR, stating appropriate rationale and 
identifying "remedial measures" (e.g., raging from official reprimand 
to dismissal).  In this policy option, it is recognized that the right to 
privacy "is not absolute," that "A compelling state interest may 
permit certain infringements of that right," so that "The asymmetry 
of power between faculty members and students, and the fact that 
what appears to be an adult, consensual, and private relationship 
may actually be the product of implicit or explicit duress, may 
present such a 'compelling interest'."  [E. Keller, "Consensual 
Relationships and Institutional Policy."]  Such "compelling interest" 
accords with the provision in Title IX of the Education Amendments 
of 1972 which "gives harassment victims the right to bring a private 
lawsuit against a university" (Alexander v. Yale University), thus 
making a faculty person's engagement in CSAR ramify at cost to the 
larger university community.

	Option A:  UAF may decide to appropriate the AAUP Council's 
CSAR policy statement (see Academe, Sept/Oct 1995, p. 62).

NOVEMBER 13, 1995


BE IT RESOLVED, That the UAF Faculty Senate moves to endorse the 
proposed changes to the System Governance Council Constitution.

	RATIONALE:  The changes reflect the relative importance and 
		success of the Faculty Alliance, as well as the Coalition 
		of Student Leaders and the Staff Alliance, and make the 
		Systemwide Governance Council more of a coordinating 
		group for those three organizations.



1. 	Change the membership from one faculty, one staff and one 
student from UAA, UAF and UAS, one student from a rural site and 
one staff from Statewide Administration, to "the Alliance of Faculty 
Senates, the Coalition of Student Leaders, and the Staff Alliance."

2. 	Replace the Council chair with the heads of the other system 
governance groups who would moderate meetings on a rotating basis.

3. 	Meetings could be called by the president or one of the heads of 
any one of the other system governance groups, or by the president 
of the Board of Regents.

4. 	Amend voting to add, "The Council shall take no legislative 
action on system issues other than endorsement of the actions of 
the other system governance groups or to coordinate actions 
between them unless specifically directed by the president of the 
Board of Regents, the president of the university, or the Council co-

5. 	Reduce the minimum number of meetings per year from six to 
four and specify meetings only by audio or video conference.

6. 	Reduce the Council budget from $6,200 to a maximum of 
$3,000 and divide the balance equally between the Alliance of 
Faculty Senates, the Staff Alliance, or the Coalition of Student 

If these changes meet with the approval of the System Governance 
Council necessary constitutional changes will be drafted and 
submitted to the Council for first reading according to the 
constitution and bylaws.

((    ))  =  DELETIONS

			The System Governance Council
					of the
				University of Alaska



It is the intent of the Board of Regents:1) that the faculty, staff and 
students shall share in the governance of the university, 2) that 
shared governance is an integral part of the business of the 
university, and 3) that participators in shared governance are 
empowered by the Board of Regents to carry out their governance 
responsibilities to the best of their abilities without interference 
or fear of reprisal.


The Board of Regents hereby establishes a mechanism for system 
governance consisting of faculty, staff and student representatives 
which shall be called the System Governance Council, hereinafter 


A.  Authority

The Council receives its authority by policy 03.01.01 of the 
University of Alaska Board of Regents which derives its authority 
from the Constitution and statutes of the State of Alaska. The 
Council shall carry out its functions subject to the authority of the 
Board of Regents and the President of the University.

B.  Role

The Council shall provide an opportunity for faculty, staff and 
students to interact with the university president, regents and 
others regularly to discuss matters including, but not limited to, the 
following: policies and procedures for, and participating in, the 
university budget process; the framing of long range plans; 
university development; enhancing the university's public image and 
educating the public. The Council shall communicate the results of 
those discussions to the university community.  The Council may 
also coordinate matters of mutual concern to the Alliance of Faculty 
Senates, the Staff Alliance and the Coalition of Student Leaders.


A.  Voting membership

The voting membership of the Council shall consist of ((one faculty, 
one staff, and one student representative each from the University 
of Alaska Anchorage, the University of Alaska Fairbanks, and the 
University of Alaska Southeast, one staff representative from 
Statewide Administration Assembly and one additional at-large 
student representative)) THE ALLIANCE OF FACULTY SENATES, THE 

((Voting members shall communicate their governance activities to 
their constituencies, and to their supervisors or professors as 
appropriate, on a regular basis)).

((B.  Selection

Faculty and staff representatives to the Council shall be selected in 
such a manner as prescribed by the local governance groups. Student 
representatives shall be selected by the Coalition of Student 
Leaders as prescribed in the Coalition Constitution.))

((C.  Terms of office

Representatives to the Council shall serve a minimum of a one year 

((D.  Qualifications

Representatives to the Council should have prior shared governance 
experience wherever possible.))

((E.  Recall of members

Any member may be recalled by the body by which the member was 
chosen.  The local constituent body shall select a replacement to 
complete the term of office.))

B.  ((F.)) Ex-officio, non-voting membership

Ex-officio, non-voting membership in the Council shall include the 
President of the University, the chancellor or other administrative 
officer from each MAU, and any other such person or persons as the 
President may designate, and such others as determined by the 

C.  ((G.)) ((Official Spokesperson)) OFFICERS

	1.  ((Election))

	((The official spokesperson for the Council shall be elected by 
	and from the voting membership by a majority vote.))  THE 

	2.  Duties

	((The official spokesperson for the)) Council CO-CHAIRS shall 
	(a) preside over all meetings of the Council ON A ROTATING 
	BASIS. b) represent the Council, and c) serve as primary 
	Council contactS to the President of the University and the 
	Board of Regents.

D.  ((H. )) Task Forces

The Board of Regents, the President of the University, or the Council 
may establish task forces to consider complex system issues 
pursuant to Council responsibilities. These task forces shall, in all 
cases, include governance representatives appointed by the Council. 
These task forces are a formal part of shared governance, and as 
such, are subject to the Alaska Open Meeting Law, per V.C., below.


A.  Regular and special meetings

The Council shall meet a minimum of ((six)) FOUR times per year BY 
AUDIO OR VIDEO CONFERENCE. At least once per year, all governance 
group spokespersons shall meet with the President of the University 
to identify system issues and plan for the coming year.  Special 
Council meetings may be called by the Board of Regents, the 
President of the University, the ((spokesperson)) CO-CHAIRS of the 
Council, or on petition of one-third ((of the membership)) of the 

B.  Voting

Voting shall be by simple majority of the full voting membership 
except for amendments to the constitutions or bylaws.  Amendments 
to the Council constitution affecting membership rights shall 
require a consensus with no negative votes.  THE COUNCIL SHALL 

C.  Open Meetings

All meetings of the Council are subject to the Alaska Open Meetings 
Law, AS 44.62.3101 and any additions or exemptions thereto, and 
Regents' Policy 02.06.01 and university regulations 02.06.01 through 
02.06.04.  This means that meetings of the Council are open to the 
public, agendas must be posted, and meeting records kept. Council 
activities shall be regularly communicated to the university 


A minimum of a simple majority of the voting membership shall 
constitute a quorum.


The parliamentary authority shall be the latest edition of Robert's 
Rules of Order.


A.  Constitutions and bylaws 

The Council constitution and bylaws, once passed by the Council, 
shall be transmitted to the President of the University for approval 
and to the Board of Regents for action. Copies of Council 
constitutions and bylaws shall be maintained in the system 
governance office.

B.  Amendments; distribution prior to voting

Amendments to the constitution and bylaws shall be sent to all 
members of the Council at least 30 days prior to the meeting at 
which they will be considered. Amendments to the Council 
constitution affecting membership rights shall require consensus 
with no negative vote.

C.  Transmittal to the President and Board of Regents for approval

Amendments passed by the Council shall be sent to the President of 
the University for approval and for transmission to the Board of 


A.  Review

Administrative proposals and issues affecting the university system 
or system community shall be submitted to the executive officer 
who shall send the items to the ((Council)) ALLIANCE OF FACULTY 
AT A COUNCIL MEETING AND ((The Council shall)) respond to these 
proposals and issues within 40 days after receipt from the 
executive officer.  Those administrative proposals submitted in the 
summer months shall be acted upon by the Council by October 15. 
Responses shall be transmitted to the executive officer for 
compilation and submission to the President of the University. 
Proposals requiring immediate implementation for compliance with 
state or federal law shall be submitted to the Council for review, 
but may be implemented prior to their action.

B.  Transmittal to the President

The executive officer shall submit the original proposal, together 
with the majority and minority views, in writing to the President of 
the University for information or action as appropriate.

C. Transmittal to the Board of Regents

The ((spokesperson)) CO-CHAIRS for the Council may present Council 
views, including majority and minority views, in writing directly to 
the Board of Regents as a regular agenda item of the Board on any 
issue within the purview of shared governance.  The Council may 
also present its views to Board committees as appropriate.


A.  Action by the President The President of the University shall, in 
writing, approve, disapprove, or modify a Council actopm, and notify 
the ((spokesperson)) COUNCIL CO-CHAIRS and the executive officer 
within forty-five (45) days of receiving notification of the action 
((by)) FROM the executive officer.

B.  Modifications by the President

The President of the University may modify a Council action if the
modification does not effectively contravene or nullify the purpose 
or principle involved in the action.

C.  Disapprovals

The President of the University shall inform the Council of the 
reasons for any disapproval or modification within one month of 
disapproving or modifying a Council action.

D.  Board of Regents notification and action

Council actions which are modified or disapproved by the President 
of the University, together with the statement of reasons, shall be 
placed on the next Board of Regents' meeting agenda for the 
information of the Board if requested by the Council. At the request 
of either the President of the University or the Council, the Council 
action which has been modified or disapproved shall be brought 
before the Board for action. The decision of the Board of Regents is 


The Council shall annually submit a directory of Council members, a 
description of the Council and how it works, and the annual Council 
calendar to the executive officer for inclusion in the governance 
handbook.  This handbook shall be distributed to the Board of Regents 
and to the shared governance groups.


The Council shall annually prepare a report of activities. These shall 
be submitted to the executive officer for compilation ((into a single 
annual report of governance activities)) for submission to the 
President of the University and the Board of Regents.  The executive 
officer shall maintain system governance communications via 
electronic mail and prepare system governance news for inclusion in 
electronic and printed newsletters.

NOVEMBER 13, 1995

FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE - Barbara Alexander, Chair

The Faculty Affairs' Committee convened to address issues currently 
under discussion and critical to faculty: consequences and 
implications of new compensation policy, new evaluation process 
and workload distribution, tenure and promotion process, appeals 
and grievance policies.  The Committee also responded to the 
Chancellor's "need for policy" memorandum Re: "Amorous 
Relationships" and "Sexual Harassment".  General agreement as to 
the severity of the issue was expressed, but there was also the 
recognition that policies other than the most generally phrased 
appeal to professional integrity would not necessarily resolve 
conflict situations already created.  The committee's motion to 
adopt the AAUP policy statement on "Concensual Sexual (Amorous) 
Relations between Faculty and Students" is included in the Senate 
agenda as attachment 59/8.

Members of the Committee responded to other policy review issues 
with serious concern and expressed consternation regarding the 
review process and its intent.  Examining the Draft re: Dispute 
resolution policy and regulation, considerable discrepancies from 
established policies such as AAUP and AFT were noted.  
Recommendations and clarifications were forwarded for 
presentation at the Alliance Meeting in Anchorage on Oct. 26 and 27.

It appears to be of utmost importance that all faculty be fully 
informed and keep especially alert to the intents and motivations 
behind so many major policy reviews and changes so soon after 
Program Assessment and Recommendations following the change in 
policy governing financial exigency.  

NOVEMBER 13, 1995


The Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee has met three times.  
In the first meeting a chair was selected and the charge of the 
committee was discussed.  This discussion continued through the 
second meeting.  At the third meeting the following motion was 

The UAF Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee moves to adopt 
the following as the charge of this committee.

(1)  A promotion/tenure appeals subcommittee composed of five 
tenured faculty will hear all promotion and 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.

(2)  Committee members shall constitute a hearing panel to serve as 
needed on grievance hearing panels.

(3)  Committee members shall oversee the process of evaluation of 
academic administrators.  

(4)  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 
reconsideration subcommittee, i.e., will review the available 
documents and make a determination on whether or not appropriate 
policy and due process was followed. 

(5)  Committee members shall review issues dealing with faculty 
prerogative and make recommendations for policy changes to the 
Faculty Senate.

The following two motions were also approved and will be brought 
before the Senate at the next meeting:

Motion to amend the Grade Appeals Policy so that three of the 
tenure-track faculty members selected for a grade review 
committee (one member under point III.B.3.b. and one each under 
points c. and d.) will be drawn from the Faculty Appeals and 
Oversight Committee.

Motion to amend point (2) in the guidelines for Faculty Role in the 
Evaluation of Administrators endorsed by the Faculty Senate on 
December 17, 1990 to include administrator positions that currently 
exist and to exclude those that no longer exist.

Staggered terms for members were also determined and are as 

1 year terms:  David Crawford, Mark Tumeo, Brian Paust, Daniel 
Walsh, Meriam Karlsson, Walt Peterson, David Stone, Marvin Falk, 
Greg Goering.

2 year terms:  Wayne Vandre, Jonah Lee, Joseph Niebauer, V. Kamath, 
Alan Jubenville, DeAnne Hallsten, Dale Feist, Nag Rao, Diane Bischak.

NOVEMBER 13, 1995

Moessner, Chair

This semester the Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement 
Committee has discussed the following items:

1.	Featured Faculty -- The Committee at present is finished with 
the project and it is in the hands of the Provost's Office for 

2.	Office of Faculty Development -- so far the committee has 
talked with Dana Thomas about his role in faculty development and 
upcoming reaccreditation.

3.	November 10, the Committee will be meeting with John Morack 
about his role in Faculty Development.  At that meeting we will also 
hear from former committee heads for the Usibelli awards about 
possible recommendations to improve the award process.

NOVEMBER 13, 1995


		Annual Report, 1994-95 Academic Year

This report consists of three sections:  statistical information, 
comments and recommendations, and committee operating rules.



The campus-wide P/T committee evaluated 28 files for tenure.  Of 
these 28 candidates, 13 were in their year of mandatory review.  
Twenty were concurrent candidates for promotion to associate 
professor and three to full professor.  Twenty-four files came to the 
committee with support from all levels.  The P/T committee 
supported 22 of these candidates by unanimous vote, one by a 9 to 1 
vote, and one by a 7 to 3 vote.  Two files had split support at earlier 
levels, and the committee supported one by a 8 to 1 vote, and did 
note support the other file with a 0 to 8 vote.  Table 1 presents 
these data more concisely.

		Table 1.  Tenure Statistics (1994-95)

		Total number of files				28
		Concurrent with promotion			23
		Mandatory year   					13

		Supported by:
		Head, peer comm., dean, P/T comm.	24
		Head, peer, P/T comm. 				  1
		Head 							  1
		No support 						  0
		Withdrew  						  2


The campus-wide P/T committee evaluated 34 candidates for 
promotion, including 23 who were candidates for concurrent tenure.  
Of these, 21 were candidates for promotion to associate professor 
and 13 to full professor.  Of the 34 files, 22 were supported at all 
levels of review including the P/T committee.  One candidate 
received support from the department head, a split (2 to 2) peer 
vote, and negative support from the P/T committee.  One candidate 
received support from all levels of review except for a 4 to 5 
negative vote of the P/T committee.  One candidate had support only 
from the dean and a 4 to 4 P/T committee vote.  One candidate was 
supported only by the department head.  Two candidates were 
supported at all levels except by the peer committee.  One candidate 
was supported only by the department head and the P/T committee.  
One candidate was supported by all levels except the dean.  Table 2 
summarizes these data.

		Table 2.  Promotion Statistics (1994-95)

		Total number of files				34
		Concurrent with tenure			23
		Associate						21
		Full							13

		Supported by:
		Head, peer comm., dean, P/T comm.	22
		Head, Dean, P/T comm.			  2
		Head, peer, P/T comm.				  1
		Dean, split peer					  1
		Head, peer, Dean					  1
		Head, split peer					  1
		Head, split P/T comm				  1
		Head only						  1
		Withdrew						  4

The Chancellor differed with the P/T committee on five cases; a 
tenure vote in which the committee voted 8 yes and 1 no, and four 
promotion votes.  Table 3 shows the outcomes of those promotion 

	Table 3.  Cases in which the Chancellor and the P/T committee 
	reached opposite conclusions on promotion files (1994-95)

P/T Committee vote	Chancellor decision	Chancellor agreed with

	No				Yes				Head
	Split No			Yes			Head, peer comm., dean
	Split yes			No				Head
	Split yes			No				Dean
Statistics from the previous four years, showing the cases in which 
the Chancellor's decision differed from that of the Promotion and 
Tenure Committee, are given in Table 4:

Table 4.  Cases in which the Chancellor and P/T Committee reached
		opposite conclusions (1991-1994)

Academic Yr.	P/T Committee			Chancellor	# cases

1990-91:		split 					yes		1 case
			yes 					no		2 cases
			no					yes		2 cases

1991-92:		split 					no		1 case
			yes					no		1 case
			no					yes		2 cases

1992-93:		split (majority negative) 	yes		1 case
			no					yes		1 case

1993-94:		split (majority negative)	yes		1 case
			split (majority positive)	no		1 case

Tenure and promotion data for the 1994-95 academic year were 
provided by the governance office. Data for 1990-91, 1991-92, and 
1993-94 were taken from the University-wide P/T committee 
1992-93 and 1993-94 annual reports.  


Some of the following comments were presented in this committee's 
1994 annual report.  They are repeated because the number of 
individuals actually reading them was probably limited, and because 
they may be helpful to faculty preparing promotion and/or tenure 

1.	Those preparing tenure and promotion files should make sure 
that their files are well organized and easy to read and understand.  
Some files were difficult to review because of poor organization, 
while others were a pleasure to read.  Put most recent annual 
evaluation first, not last.  Make the previous annual reviews easy to 
find.  Basic information needed to fill in the promotion/tenure 
worksheet (copy attached) should be readily available to evaluators, 
possibly in the form of a table.  Units (department heads) should look 
at a file and make sure the candidate supplies one which is well-
organized and well-documented.  File quantity is not necessarily 
related to file quality.  Specifically, committee members have 
commented that:

	a)  A file should contain a table of annual workload 
distributions and average distributions over the relevant time 
period.  There should be consistency between workload distributions 
and evaluation.

	b)   A file and one's vita should have complete bibliographic 
references including page numbers and should not have 

	c)  The research section should separate paper submissions, 
refereed journal articles, proceedings papers, books, abstracts, and 
other manuscripts, and have information on journal or proceedings 
quality.  If no other measure is available, total citations a journal 
receives vs. others in the field may be helpful.  

	d)  Reporting of citation analyses, and the number of reprint 
requests should be encouraged as a way to evaluate research.  This 
would be helpful to the reader as well as the individual writing the 

	e)  What constitutes a publication?  How should abstracts, 
conference proceedings, and journal articles be counted?  What 
should be the relative weighting?  These items need to be defined by 
departments, but should be in writing so that everyone knows, 
particularly the individual preparing a file and file evaluators.

	f)  It would be helpful to know the significance of the ordering 
of authors.

	g)  A file should have a statistical compilation of student 
evaluations of teaching, specifically, the mean of items 1 through 4 
of the general evaluation.

	h)  Peer/head evaluation of teaching should be required.  It 
does not always appear.  It is crucial that files have measures of 
teaching quality other than student evaluations.  There is concern 
that many individuals who look at Student Evaluation of Teaching 
(SET) results have an imperfect understanding of statistics and the 
significance of decile rankings.  They just "look for a lot of black on 
the right hand side of the form".  UAF previously used an evaluation 
process that explicitly showed a confidence interval with the mean 
value of the response to each question.  Confidence intervals are 
essential to evaluating SET results and should be part of the SET 
data.  It is misleading to publish mean values to two decimal places 
without confidence intervals.

	i) It would be helpful to have a table of annual evaluation 
results/ratings by year.

	j)  Definitions of words for evaluation need to be clarified and 
standardized, as does the ranking of words; for example, "sustained, 
satisfactory, excellent, good, and very good".

	k)  The term "sustained" is difficult to precisely define.  
Perhaps it should be related to some minimum time in rank.  It was 
suggested that sustained effort cannot be evaluated in less time 
than 5 years at assistant professor rank and 5 more years at 
associate professor rank before promotion may be appropriate.

	l)  Units should be careful to follow a set of rules or 
procedures consistently.  There should be a focus on teaching, 
research, and service.  Personality should not be an issue.

	m)  Peer reports need to be specific when noting defects of a 
candidate's file.  Comments like "too early" or "not ready" are 
inadequate.  Comments need to be performance related, specific, and 
related to policies and procedures guidelines for promotion and 
tenure at UAF.

	n)  Peer committee members should sign yes or no on the 
committee report.  Minority opinions should not be suppressed, 
whether positive or negative.

	o)  Promotion/tenure and peer committee members should not 
abstain except in the case of "double-dipping" in the evaluation 
process.  Department heads should not vote on peer committees for 
cases involving faculty that they previously evaluated.

	p)  The committee guidelines and/or university policy should 
be amended/clarified to define who has access to promotion and 
tenure files and committee voting records.  Promotion and tenure 
files are currently archived with restricted access.  It seems 
consistent that only candidates have access to committee voting 
results on their files alone.  This year, a candidate dissatisfied with 
the committee vote tried to obtain the committee's complete voting 
record.  A friend of that candidate demanded, of a committee 
member, to know how certain committee members voted.

	q)  Guidelines for tenure and/or promotion review are 
presently distributed in mid-September and files are due by the 
second week of October.  This leaves inadequate time for file 
preparation.  The committee believes that it would be helpful to 
make this information available in May rather than in September.

2. 	The committee again received excellent logistical support 
from the Governance Office.


The operating rules for 1994-95 were unchanged relative to those in 
effect for 1993-94.

The rules appeared to provide a good operating framework but will 
be reviewed by the 1995-96 committee for possible modifications.

		John Aspnes
		Professor and Head of Electrical Engineering
		Chair, University-wide Promotion and Tenure Committee, 
		October 21, 1995

NOVEMBER 13, 1995


DATE: 	October 18, 1995

TO:		Chancellor Wadlow

FROM:		Administrative Committee, UAF Faculty Senate

SUBJECT:	Appointment of search committee for CRA executive dean

The members of the Administrative Committee request that you add 
one additional faculty member to the search committee for the CRA 
executive dean, from the list of faculty generated as a result of CRA 
faculty nominations last month.

We also request that you ask the committee members to vote to 
confirm the appointed chair of that committee.

We believe that these actions would bring the establishment of that 
committee within the guidelines of Senate policy passed on 
November 11, 1991, and subsequently accepted as university 
regulation.  We understand your contention that this "executive dean" 
position does not fall under the guidelines for "policy for the search 
committees for Deans/Directors," but we disagree.  There does not 
seem to be any compelling reason to set aside university policy in 
this instance, and doing so creates an impression of high-handedness 
and lack of good faith, which we're sure you would agree is not fair 
to your effort to appoint a representative search committee.

We make this request from the Administrative Committee because 
the CRA dean search has already begun, and the Senate is not 
scheduled to meet until November 13.  If you decide not to make the 
requested changes, we anticipate bringing this before the Senate as 
a resolution on November 13.


October 25, 1995


TO:		Administrative Committee
		UAF Faculty Senate
		University of Alaska Fairbanks

FROM:		Joan K. Wadlow, Chancellor
		University of Alaska Fairbanks

SUBJECT:	CRA Executive Dean Search

I received your October 18 memorandum about the search committee 
for the CRA executive Dean.  As you note, I do not consider the 
position of executive dean to fall under the guidelines for search 
committees for deans/directors.  The position of Executive Dean, 
which reports to the chancellor, is different by design from the 
deans/directors to who the current Senate policy for search 
committees refers.  I also recognize that you disagree.

Search committees that reflect the many constituencies connected 
with a program are normally more effective.  Also, smaller search 
committees can function easier, optimize the valuable time of 
committee members, and reduce costs.  I believe we have a balanced 
committee in the relatively small (10-person) composition of the 
CRA Executive Dean search committee.  For instance, someone from 
each of the six campuses is a member; the Council of CRA, which is 
established by BOR policy, is represented; ACE, the unit which will 
soon join with CRA, is represented; student, faculty, staff, 
administration, is represented; the directors, who have a special 
"community college" mission regarding the communities they serve, 
are represented; the variety of academic curriculum including 
general education and vocational education, was taken into account; 
and there is at least one faculty, student and staff.  The committee 
chair, who also holds faculty rank, is experienced with searches and 
has support staff in her office to help facilitate the work.  The 
single largest component of the committee is faculty.

I do not intend, therefore, to change the committee composition at 
this time.

I have made the chair aware of your request that the committee 
confirm the appointed chair, and the committee may act accordingly.

It seems to me that the goal we should all strive to achieve is an 
effective search which recognizes the great diversity of programs, 
responsibilities and geography in the CRA and ACE and which also 
meets UAF's equal opportunity/affirmative action guidelines.  The 
committee has been working hard to do this and deserves our 
support.  The interview process the committee proposes, for 
example, will be open to all of CRA and ACE, thus involving every 
faculty (and staff and student) who wishes to be part.

I hope this addresses your points.


cc	Prof. Sharon West



TO:		Chancellor Wadlow

FROM: 	CRA Faculty Council

SUBJECT:	Appointment of Search Committee for CRA Executive 

DATE :	October 26, 1995

The CRA Faculty Council supports the memo submitted by the Faculty 
Senate Administrative Committee to you re appointment of a search 
committee for the CRA Executive Dean and urges you to implement 
the solution suggested in the memo.  Additionally, we request that 
the search not be limited to the UAF community but at least be 
extended statewide.

We are aware that you have declined to honor the request of the 
Faculty Senate in this matter but ask your reconsideration of your 
position as well as the scope of the search.


The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #30 on 
November 11, 1991:

MOTION PASSED (with 1 abstention and 1 nay)

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve the following policy for 
the search committees for Deans/Directors.

	The faculty of the college, school, institute or other academic 
unit shall elect faculty to serve as members of the Dean/Director 
Search Committee.  Elected faculty members serving on the Search 
Committee must constitute a majority of Committee membership.

	The chairperson of the Search Committee shall be nominated 
by the Vice Chancellor or Academic Affairs or the Vice Chancellor 
for Research, as appropriate, subect to confirmation by the elected 
faculty members.

	The size of the Search Committee shall be determined by the 
VCAA or the VCR, as appropriate, but the membership shall not have 
less than five elected faculty members.

	The Search Committee may include other members such as a 
student representative from the unit, a staff representative from 
the unit, a faculty members from outside the unit and a public 
member from the community.


1.	A staff representative shall be elected by the staff from the 
unit for which the Dean/Director is being appointed.

2.	Alternates may be selected to serve, only in the event an 
elected representative cannot or will not serve.  Alternates are not 
to serve as part-time substitutes but rather as replacements for 
representatives of the aforementioned situations.

3.	Search committees should have membership with good 
judgement, ability to act on behalf of UAF and be cognizant of their 
overall responsibility to their unit and to UAF.

4.	Committee members should reflect a diversity of interests and 
elected faculty members should reflect the diversity and cross-
section of their school/college/institute/unit.

	EFFECTIVE:	Immediately

	RATIONALE:	The UAF Administration has not followed the 
		intent of the Senate Resolution passed on September 17, 
		1990.  This motion has been discussed with the VCAA and 
		should be acceptable to the UAF Senate and the UAF 


The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #20 on 
September 17, 1990:

RESOLUTION  (unanimous approval)

BE IT RESOLVED, That the UAF Faculty Senate strongly recommends 
	that search committees for deans and directors be composed in 
	majority of faculty elected from and by the faculty from units 
	for which the dean or director is to be selected and that each 
	committee elect their own Chair.

NOVEMBER 13, 1995

Meeting of October 2, l395, by D.F. Lynch 
Reference: Faculty Load Module, Banner Student 2.0 User Manual, 
March 1994, Confidential

I attended the meeting of the Banner group in the extremely well 
equipped computer lab of the Butrovich Building the afternoon of 
October 1st.  Approximately twenty five people were in attendance.  
Cheryl Mann, President of the UAA Faculty Senate, and Rita Dursi 
Johnson, President of the UAS Faculty Senate participated by 
telephone.  I attended half the meeting as President Elect of the UAF 

The Banner Faculty Work Load Module is a comprehensive personnel 
records and assignment model designed specifically to:

- schedule classes and instructors for those classes

- assess faculty performance against assigned work load statements

- determine faculty performance as measured against specific work 
load formulae and criteria

The Model includes one section for non-instructional assignments 
and performance.  It does not contain any specific section covering 
Research, Public Service, University Service.  The formulae implicit 
in the model, as used as illustrations, relates totally to instruction.  
It is comprehensive, and should enable Institutional Research to 
correlate faculty performance as measured in weighted credit hours 
directly to individual courses.  The Model does not contain 
information on faculty capabilities, but only instructional 
assignments for a given semester.

As a management device, as a means for scheduling teachers and 
course assignments, it is seriously deficient.  Instead, it is a record 
keeping computer model which may ease the production of 
instructionally related historical data for Institutional Research.

Cheryl Mann presented the viewpoint that the formulae and 
assignments are properly determined by Faculty.  The answer was 
that the model will use the formulae, etc., as presented by a as yet 
unestablished Workload Committee.  The participants commented 
that each faculty member has an individual workload assignment and 
that there are no standardized measures.  As I understood it, 
bargaining unit faculty would be excluded from the determinations 
or the Workload Committee.

Personal Comment: I would like to know why we need to spend the 
time and money involving in implementing this new Faculty Workload 
Module, what use is to be made of it, and who is to use it.  It seems 
designed for a large school district, not for a University with a wide 
range of obligations from funded research to vocational training and 
extension work.

NOVEMBER 13, 1995


TO:		Cheryl Mann 
		Don Lynch 

FROM: 	Rita Dursi Johnson, President, UAS Faculty Senate

DATE: 	November 3, 1995

SUBJECT:	Report of Banner Faculty Load Module Meeting 11/02/95

I attended this session by audioconference, as did Cheryl Mann and 
Don Lynch.  The meeting was to cover and explanation of the process 
and the information contained in that module.

Prior to the meeting, I met with the UAS personnel guru, Tom Dienst, 
who demonstrated the current system and explained the data 
currently retained.  There are the usual hire dates, department, and 
rank fields, as well as the normal personnel fields (salary, benefits 
package, etc.).  Essentially, the only data on workload currently 
gathered is "Workload Distribution" which consists of six categories 
(instruction, research, management, university service, public 
service, and other).  A percentage is entered in as many categories 
as apply to each faculty, based on the Faculty Workload agreements 
completed by faculty at the beginning of each academic year.  The 
percentages must total 100 percent.  This data is gathered by the 
Statewide Office of Institutional Research and used in the annual 
document "UA in Review."

The University has purchased three modules of Banner for 
administrative purposes.  There is Financial module, a Personnel (or 
HR) module, and a Student module.  The Faculty Workload module is 
part of the last.  The entire module is for the purpose of registering 
students and providing other student information, scheduling 
classes, and for faculty information including workload.

Per Carol Berg, the SCT (vendor) representative, the purpose of this 
meeting was to explain what the system can do and how it does it--
not at the "this is now you input data" level but at the process level.  
Then, she said, a work team must be developed to decide exactly how 
UA will use this module and to answer questions about issues that 
arise.  This means that the work team makes decisions on a wide 
range of things, from which of all the available processes within the 
module it wishes to use, and what changes might need to be made to 
the generic screens, to which departments enters the data, to which 
department "owns" particular data (i.e., has ultimately 
responsibility for ensuring the data's accuracy), to deciding policy 
issues such as how to describe the specific aspects of faculty tasks.

Pat Pitney of the Statewide Office of Institutional Research is the 
Chairperson of the work team, but the team members have not yet 
been named.  Choosing the team members will happen over the next 
four-six weeks.  

Cheryl quite aptly summed up the module as a way to generate 
statistical data, and advocated that when the time came for defining 
productivity measures for workload that faculty must be involved.

The more pertinent points from the session:

1.	The module will require setting up of "rules" for computing 
faculty load.  An example of a rule is "teaching nine credit per term."  
Carol Berg was greeted with loud hoots when she asked "What is the 
rule now for computing faculty load."  Across UA, she was told, there 
is no universal agreement, no standard; that each faculty has his or 
her own circumstance which may change each semester.

2.	The module allows credit for non-instructional activity.  Rules 
must be set up for this but are as flexible as "advises X number of 
students" or "manages Education program."  Research and service 
would be included here.

3.	There is a field that allows textual comments to be input.  
This is an example of an area where the UA work team will have to 
make decisions--who can input something, and what kinds of things 
can (or can't) be input.  (Use of this field might be equivalent to 
placing a document into someone's file without that someone's 

4.	There are two ways to enter data in order to compute 
workload.  One is by "workload rule" which means in this module one 
term or semester, and the second is by "contract" which is defined 
as including more than one semester.  Cheryl questioned the 
capability of the system to handle changes in either method.  
According to Carol Berg, both the "workload" and the "contract" can 
be changed mid-stream.

There was a lengthy discussion on integrating this module with the 
"HR" module.  Such an integration is not automatic, and the work 
team will have to make decisions about where such integration must 
be made.  The point of having such integration is to have the ability 
to determine what has been paid, and what it was paid form [sic], 
i.e., to determine the cost of instruction. 

Anyone interested in serving on the work team needs to contact Pat 
Pitney at 474-5889.