FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT: Sheri Layral 312 Signers' Hall 474-7964 FYSENAT A G E N D A UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #69 Monday, February 10, 1996 1:30 p.m. - 4:25 p.m. Wood Center Ballroom 1:30 I Call to Order - Don Lynch 5 Min. A. Roll Call B. Approval of Minutes to Meeting #68 C. Adoption of Agenda 1:35 II Status of Chancellor's Office Actions 5 Min. A. Motions Approved: 1. Motion to approve new programs in Health Technology. 2. Motion to approve new Certificate in Applied Business. 3. Motion on changes to the policies on "W", "I", and "NB". B. Motions Pending: none 1:40 III Remarks by Chancellor J. Wadlow 15 Min. & Provost J. Keating Questions 5 Min. 2:00 IV Guest Speaker - Ann Tremarello, 10 Min. University Registrar 2:10 V Governance Reports A. ASUAF - C. Wheeler 5 Min. B. Staff Council - R. Pierce 5 Min. C. President's Report - D. Lynch 5 Min. (Attachment 69/1) D. President-Elect¹s Report - J. Craven 5 Min. (Attachment 69/2) E. Report on Chancellor's Workshop (Handout) 10 Min. F. Report on the AAHE Conference 10 Min. 2:50 VI Public Comments/Questions 5 Min. 2:55 *** BREAK *** 10 Min. 3:05 VII New Business A. Motion to amend the Transfer of Credit 5 Min. Policy, submitted by Curricular Affairs (Attachment 69/3) B. Motion on courses considered for CORE 5 Min. designation must include a plan for its effectiveness evaluation, submitted by Core Review (Attachment 69/4) C. Motion to amend the Academic Review Cycle 10 Min. to include a spring review, submitted by Graduate Curricular Affairs/Curriculum Review (Attachment 69/5) D. Motion to amend the UAF Regulations for the 5 Min. Evaluation of Faculty to add a new paragraph, submitted by University-wide Promotion & Tenure (Attachment 69/6) E. Motion to amend Section 3 (ARTICLE V: 10 Min. Committees) of the Bylaws, submitted by Administrative Committee (Attachment 69/7) F. Motion to approve the 1997-98 Faculty 5 Min. Senate meeting calendar, submitted by Administrative Committee (Attachment 69/8) G. Motion to reaffirm position of salary/ 5 Min. compensation locus of tenure, and post- tenure review, submitted by Ad Hoc Committee on Union/Governance Relations (Attachment 69/9) 3:45 VIII Committee Reports 30 Min. A. Curricular Affairs - Maynard Perkins (Attachment 69/10) B. Faculty Affairs - Norm Swazo C. Graduate Curricular Affairs - Mark Tumeo D. Scholarly Activities - Ron Barry E. CNCSHDR - Rudy Krejci F. Developmental Studies - Ron Illingworth G. Faculty Appeals & Oversight - Diane Bischak H. Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement - Rich Seifert I. Graduate School Advisory Committee - Susan Hendricks (Attachment 69/11) J. Legislative & Fiscal Affairs - Michael Jennings K. Service Committee - Kara Nance L. University-Wide Promotion/Tenure - John Keller M. Core Review Committee - Jin Brown (Attachment 69/12) 4:15 IX Discussion Items 5 Min. 4:20 X Members' Comments/Questions 5 Min. 4:25 XI Adjournment ******************** ATTACHMENT 69/1 UAF FACULTY SENATE #69 FEBRUARY 10, 1997 REPORT TO THE UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 10TH, 1997 - Pres. Donald F. Lynch, Ph.D. Welcome to our Rural Sites Representatives. We are grateful to see you in person as we all recognize your audio conference voices. First and foremost I wish to thank all the committee chairs and members who have been working very hard on the Senate's business. Particularly I wish to thank three really overloaded committees: Curricular Affairs, Curriculum Review, and Core Review. Something like 140 course changes have been processed, and Core Review is struggling with a means to evaluate the "effectiveness" of the core curriculum. In addition, a new grading system, after much discussion, has been approved. The Promotion and Tenure committee has done excellent work in evaluating candidates for tenure and promotion. This is an arduous task which this committee is performing. Your agenda contains United Academics response to your Resolution passed at the last meeting. You will notice that the Executive Board of United Academics is very concerned about cooperating to the maximum degree possible with the UAF and other Faculty Senates. I have already alerted you to the Provost's "Targets" for measuring improved effectiveness. The Administrative Committee has requested that the Targets be widely distributed. United Academics will be developing the first draft of the contract proposal the week of February 16 through 23rd. John Craven has proposed several bylaw changes which you will be asked to consider. I have proposed bylaw changes attempting to strength and more clearly define the roles and place of the Curricular Affairs, Curriculum Review, and Core Review committees. The Administrative Committee has requested that the chairs of these committees consider the proposals and develop their own ideas. The Provost indicated at the Administrative Committee meeting that courses not given in the past five years may be continued in the catalogue at the request of the department affected. Such courses should be submitted very quickly. John Craven and I will be in Juneau February 12th through 14th attending the Regents' meeting and joining the other governance groups in supporting the University's budget request before the state legislature. We hope this effort will be helpful. I defer to the Registrar for accurate information, but my understanding is that the Banner Program is to be completed and running by the fall semester of 1997. This will include the faculty workload module which will be based on the workload statements each faculty member submits. I encourage everyone to take these statements seriously particularly regarding research and public service, elements not yet included in the module. We have not yet received official explanation and justification from Statewide for the new general harassment policy. I have sent an E Mail message to the Regents protesting Statewide's action in failing to consult governance on a major policy matter potentially affecting all of us. My personal belief is that the proposed policy is "fatally flawed", as the phrase goes and may lead to endless litigation. There is another policy document which we recently obtained developed by a committee chaired by Dean Carla Kirts which contains a paragraph regarding faculty functions. We have not been officially informed of this document's existence either, and so governance here is also being ignored. Kara Nance and I represented the Senate at the "Sour Grapes Ball," which was a very relaxing and entertaining evening. Those who worked so hard to put this event on, including Brenda Wilcox, Janel Thompson, Enid Cutler, "Issac" and the UAF "mascot" are to be complimented. Approximately forty faculty are retiring this year. Departments need, therefore, to take recommendations on Emeritus Status and Affiliate Professorships quite seriously. Tara Maginnis and John Craven represented the Senate at the Chancellor's workshops. The bad news is a potential multi-million dollar deficit. The good news is that our administrative procedures are becoming more and more "student friendly." Through usually reliable sources, I understand that the benefits package we all enjoy is to be significantly modified by the University. We have received no accurate information on this subject, but the unofficial information is quite disconcerting. The rumour mill, active as always, also reports that the President has sequestered all early retirement positions. As usual, more open communication from Statewide would make the governance task much easier. As a final piece of advice from an Old Timer, two days after the state Legislature meets, the University administration panics, and that panic permeates downward and makes faculty and staff depressed. Don't let it get to you: remember March 17th instead! ******************** ATTACHMENT 69/2 UAF FACULTY SENATE #69 FEBRUARY 10, 1997 Report by John Craven, President Elect and Chair of the Administrative Committee 1. Faculty Alliance proposal for a Faculty Development Institute. A subcommittee of the Faculty Alliance has written and submitted to the President Komisar a proposal for the creation of a UA Faculty Development Institute to be initially funded from the Natural Resources Fund. The proposal was discussed at the joint meeting of the Alliance and the Systemwide Academic Council on January 24, 1997, where certain changes were requested by members of the SAC. Most important was the requirement for an immediate effort to secure external funds on a cost-sharing basis to support the institute, where it is expected that yearly operating costs after the first year will be of the order of $250,000. It is expected that $16,000 will be provided quickly from the NRF for initial planning purposes, but not for a summer 1997 session. Quoting directly from the original proposal, "The objective of this proposal is to establish and fund a multi-year Faculty Development Program as an integral part of the university's academic endeavors in accordance with Board of Regents' priorities. These priorities include enhancing access to programs and services of high quality, maintaining currency in the technological infrastructure for delivery of instruction, providing opportunities for faculty development in appropriate pedagogies, and developing and implementing successful applications for external funding. The purpose of the Faculty Development Program is to plan and implement faculty development that addresses pedagogy, teaching methods and educational technologies. In order to accomplish this, the Faculty Alliance recommends the establishment of a Faculty Development Steering Committee to: A. design, coordinate, conduct and evaluate a Systemwide faculty development institute, identify faculty to conduct courses, and prepare funding proposals for future years; B. identify policies and/or procedures for preparing and delivering courses using new and emerging technologies; C. develop elements to be included in guidelines for meeting faculty development needs that are not being met within the University of Alaska; and D. explore partnerships with K-12 for faculty development in accordance with Board of Regents/Department of Education joint resolutions." Complete copies of the revised proposal can be obtained from the UAF Governance office or from Pat Ivey in the Systemwide Governance office. ******************** ATTACHMENT 69/3 UAF FACULTY SENATE #69 FEBRUARY 10, 1997 SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS MOTION ======= The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the Transfer of Credit Policy as listed in the UAF 1996-97 catalog, page 11 as follows: (( )) = Deletions CAPS = Additions Transfer of Credit 3. COLLEGE LEVEL ACADEMIC CREDITS EARNED BY A STUDENT AT ANY MAU WITHIN THE UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA WILL BE TRANSFERRED TO UAF, SUBJECT TO APPLICABILITY TOWARD DEGREE REQUIREMENTS AND MEASURES OF ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE AS DELINEATED BY THE APPROPRIATE COLLEGE AND DEPARTMENT. Undergraduate credits earned at the 100-level or above with a grade of "C" or higher at institutions outside of the UA system, and accredited by one of the six regional accrediting agencies, will be considered for transfer. Transfer credit normally isn't granted for courses with doctrinal religious content or for graduate courses (for undergraduate programs). ((Credit is not transferred for advanced placement credit or credit by examination awarded by another institution.)) EFFECTIVE: FALL 1997 RATIONALE: This means that a UA transfer student would be able to transfer to UAF any UA course having a grade of "D" or better; and that course would transfer to a College or Department as long as there was not conflicting College or Department criteria. This change brings UAF in accord with Regents' Policy and University Regulation: ******************** P10.04.06 A.3. 3. A student who has completed some of the general education requirements at one University of Alaska university or community college will have those credits count toward fulfillment of the same categories of general education requirements outlined in the common core at all University of Alaska universities and community colleges. This applies even if there is no directly matching coursework at the institution to which the student transfers. This statement will be published in each university and community college catalog. R10.04.06 Transfer of Credit In accepting credits from accredited colleges and universities, maximum recognition of courses satisfactorily completed will be granted to transfer students toward satisfying requirements at the receiving institution. Coursework must be at the 100 level or above to transfer and, from institutions outside the University of Alaska, must be completed with a grade of C or better. A student's entire transcript from any MAU within the University of Alaska will be transferred to another MAU, subject to applicability toward degree requirements and measures of academic performance as established elsewhere in Regents' Policy, University regulation, and the rules and procedures of the MAU from which the student is to receive a degree or certificate. ******************** ATTACHMENT 69/4 UAF FACULTY SENATE #69 FEBRUARY 10, 1997 SUBMITTED BY CORE REVIEW MOTION ======= The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve the Core Review Committee recommendation that any course proffered for consideration of CORE designation must include, in it description, a careful and complete plan for its effectiveness evaluation. Plans for effectiveness evaluation should be consonant with effectiveness evaluation plans for other courses which fulfill the same CORE requirement. Departments offering courses for CORE designation during the period in which effectiveness evaluation plans are being initiated, and which are accepted for CORE designation by the Core Review Committee, will join with the other departments offering that CORE option in planning effectiveness evaluation. This motion does not include courses submitted for "W" or "O" designation. EFFECTIVE: Fall 1997 RATIONALE: The Core Review Committee is charged with determining which courses shall be included in the CORE curriculum, and has been appointed oversight of the Educational Effectiveness Evaluation of the CORE Curriculum The Core Review Committee believes that the Effectiveness Evaluation process will become a permanent aspect of the committee¹s responsibility and in regard to the future, do not want subsequent Core Review Committees to have to reinvent the wheel. The committee feels that the faculty SHOULD begin to perceive both the CORE and their participation in the CORE in regard to the Effectiveness Evaluation process; to share, if you will, the commitment to Evaluation to which the University is committed. ******************** ATTACHMENT 69/5 UAF FACULTY SENATE #69 FEBRUARY 10, 1997 SUBMITTED BY GRADUATE CURRICULAR AFFAIRS/CURRICULUM REVIEW MOTION ======= The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the Policy on Approval of Academic Changes to include a spring review cycle deadline in March. The spring review cycle will include academic and course changes that do not require UAF Faculty Senate and Board of Regents approval. Changes in the spring review cycle will be approved effective the following Fall, however, they may not be included in the course catalog. EFFECTIVE: Immediately Upon Approval of the Chancellor RATIONALE: Once a year in the fall the Graduate Curricular Affairs Committee and the Curriculum Review Committees review numerous requests for course changes. Currently, this is the only opportunity for programs to enact changes in their degree program, add, drop or modify courses. The current deadline requires all suggestions to be drawn up and submitted relatively early in the academic year. This may not be sufficient time for faculty to complete the required paperwork and to sufficiently consider all the potential ramifications of a change. In addition, new faculty are often at a severe disadvantage if they wish to introduce a new course. Currently, if the fall deadline is missed, the action must wait an entire academic year before being considered, thereby delaying any changes for almost two years from the time the idea originated. By adding an additional review cycle in the spring, programs will be able to react more efficiently to changes, address administrative concerns more completely, and have an opportunity to optimize their program in a less hectic manner. ******************** ATTACHMENT 69/6 UAF FACULTY SENATE #69 FEBRUARY 10, 1997 SUBMITTED BY UNIVERSITY-WIDE PROMOTION & TENURE MOTION ======= The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the UAF Regulations for the Evaluation of Faculty: Initial Appointment, Annual Review, Reappointment, Promotion, Tenure, and Sabbatical Leave, Article IV.B.2. with the additional of a fifth paragraph. IV. CONSIDERATION OF FACULTY FOR PROMOTION AND TENURE B. Faculty with Academic Rank 2. (add paragraph 5) ACCESS TO THE CANDIDATES¹ FILE WILL BE LIMITED TO THE CANDIDATE, AND, DURING THE OFFICIAL REVIEW PERIODS ESTABLISHED BY THE PROVOST, THE APPROPRIATE PERSONNEL AT EACH REVIEW LEVEL (DEPARTMENT HEAD, PEER COMMITTEE, DEAN AND/OR DIRECTOR, UNIVERSITY-WIDE PROMOTION AND TENURE COMMITTEE, PROVOST, AND CHANCELLOR). EFFECTIVE: Immediately Upon Chancellor Approval RATIONALE: This paragraph makes explicit current policy in most of the University. Currently there is no statement of this policy in UAF Regulations, which has led to some confusion regarding this issue. On the other hand, if the file is not a confidential dossier, then perhaps is it a public document? In any case, access to these files should be well defined in University Regulations. The large majority of the University-wide Promotion and Tenure Committee (by a 9 to 1 vote) agreed with the above confidentiality policy. ******************** ATTACHMENT 69/7 UAF FACULTY SENATE #69 FEBRUARY 10, 1997 SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE MOTION ======= The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend Section 3 (ARTICLE V: Committees) of the Bylaws as follows: (( )) = Deletion CAPS = Addition A. An Administrative Committee will be composed of the chairpersons of all standing SENATE COMMITTEES and OF ALL permanent Senate Committees EXCEPT THE UNIVERSITY-WIDE PROMOTION AND TENURE COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE TO NOMINATE COMMENCEMENT SPEAKER AND HONORARY DEGREE RECIPIENTS. B. Membership on standing and permanent committees will be for two years EXCEPT AS NOTED BELOW with the possibility of RE- APPOINTMENT ((reelection and will be appointed by the Administrative Committee)). THE INITIAL APPOINTMENT OR RE- APPOINTMENT IS MADE BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OR AS SPECIFIED IN THE DEFINITION OF A PERMANENT COMMITTEE and ((endorsed)) CONFIRMED by the full Senate. Senators are limited to serving on a maximum of one standing committee at any one time. TO PROVIDE CONTINUITY, TERMS WILL BE STAGGERED AND AN INITIAL APPOINTMENT MAY BE MADE FOR ONE OR TWO YEARS AS DETERMINED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE BASED ON NEED. C. Standing committees will be constituted entirely of Senate members. Permanent committees can be constituted without Senate members. D. All permanent and standing committee chairs will be elected from and by the members of their respective committee and must be full-time faculty at UAF. E. The standing and permanent committees of the Senate are: STANDING 1. The Curricular Affairs Committee will deal with curricular and academic policy changes on all levels except the graduate level. 2. ((The Scholarly Activities Committee will deal with policies concerning research and creative activity.)) ((3.)) The Faculty AND SCHOLARLY Affairs Committee will deal with policies related to workload, appointment, termination, promotion, tenure, sabbatical leave, ((and)) academic freedom, RESEARCH AND CREATIVE ACTIVITY. 3((4)). The Graduate Curricular Affairs Committee will include five members and will be responsible for the review and approval of graduate courses, curriculum and graduate degree requirements, and other academic matters related to instruction and mentoring of graduate students. The Dean of the Graduate school, and the Directors of the Library, and Admissions and Records and one graduate student, are non-voting ex-officio members. PERMANENT 1. The University-Wide Promotion and Tenure Committee will be one member from each school and college. TERMS OF SERVICE ON THE COMMITTEE WILL BE THREE YEARS, WITH THE TERMS BEING STAGGERED SO THAT CONTINUITY BETWEEN COMMITTEES IS MAINTAINED. Members of this committee must hold tenured senior level appointment at UAF. This committee will review candidate files for promotion and/or tenure and will recommend for or against the promotion and/or tenure of each candidate who presents a file for consideration by the committee. 2. The Service Committee will be 7 members who represent the academic community and the general public, with not less than two members being non-university employees. The chair must be a faculty member. ((Members' terms will be staggered to provide continuity.)) This committee will deal with policies relating to the service mission of the university and its faculty. 3. The Graduate School Advisory Committee will include three full-time faculty members appointed by the Senate President, three full-time faculty members appointed by the Provost, and one graduate student selected by the Provost from nominations submitted by the graduate faculty and student senate. The graduate student must have completed a minimum of one full year of attendance at UAF. Each department with a graduate program is limited to no more than one member. The Dean of the Graduate School and the President of the Faculty Senate are ex-officio non-voting members. The Dean of the Graduate School will convene regular meetings, and must convene additional meetings if requested by two members of the committee. The committee will advise the Dean of the Graduate School and the Provost on administrative matters pertinent to the operation and growth of graduate studies at UAF, including financial and tax-related issues and dealings with other universities. All recommendations regarding curricular matters will go to the Graduate Curricular Affairs Committee and the Faculty Senate for approval. 4. The Developmental Studies Committee will include one representative from each of the following units: Northwest Campus, Chukchi Campus, Kuskokwim Campus, Bristol Bay Campus, Interior-Aleutians Campus; the ((College of Natural Sciences)) SCIENCES, MATHEMATICS, ((the)) English, ((Mathematical Sciences)), STUDENT SUPPORT SERVICES PROGRAM, and Cross Cultural Communications ((Departments)), the Developmental Studies Division of the College of Rural Alaska, Rural Student Services, and the Advising Center; and two representatives from the Tanana Valley Campus. The Developmental Studies Committee shall consider policies concerning developmental education: programs, courses, instructional development, evaluation, and assessment. This committee will function as a curriculum council review committee for all developmental studies courses. Discipline based developmental courses will be reviewed by the appropriate college curriculum council before submission to this committee for review and coordination. 5. The Faculty Development, Assessment and Improvement Committee will be composed of faculty members and the Director of Faculty Development. This committee will deal with faculty and instructional development and evaluation. 6. The Committee to Nominate Commencement Speaker and Honorary Degree Recipients will nominate commencement speakers and candidates for honorary degrees. 7. The Legislative and Fiscal Affairs Committee will follow legislative and fiscal issues which may impact faculty concerns at the university and will act as a faculty advocate with legislators and candidates. 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. ((who shall serve for a two year term. Members' terms will be staggered to provide continuity.)) This committee will function as an appeal body for issues of faculty prerogative, oversee evaluation of academic administrators, and make recommendations to the Provost or Chancellor. Committee members shall constitute a hearing panel pool to serve as needed on grievance hearing panels. 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. F. Any standing or permanent committee may create subcommittees to assist the committee. G. The Senate President may create and appoint the members of any ad hoc committee necessary for conducting Senate business. Ad hoc committees are subject to later ratification by the Senate. H. Committees must forward any legislation which involves the setting or altering of policy to the full Senate for approval. Committees which are specifically charged with applying policy to make decisions may do so without having the Senate approve those decisions. A review by the full Senate may be requested by the reviewing Senate committee. A request to the Senate Administrative Committee for a further Senate review may also be submitted by individual Senators if the question has policy implications. THE COMMITTEE CHAIR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PRESENTATION OF THE COMMITTEE¹S MOTION TO THE SENATE AT THE MEETING IN WHICH IT WILL BE CONSIDERED. EFFECTIVE: Immediately Upon Chancellor¹s Approval RATIONALE: A. The work of the University-wide Promotion and Tenure Committee and the Committee to Nominate Commencement Speakers and Honorary Degree Recipients is more seasonal than routine and the work is done largely in executive session for which there can be no public report. Hence the chairs are much less involved in the routine work of the Senate. B. These changes apply the length and staggering of appointments uniformly to all committees and provide the mechanism for creating staggered committee appointments. E. STANDING, 2 & 3 Scholarly Affairs has done nothing for three years, yet its reason for being may have some importance. By combining the two committees, such matters as may perhaps come up in the future which would normally be considered by Scholarly Affairs could be handled by the combined Faculty and Scholarly Affairs. E. PERMANENT, 4. Changes in the college structure and realignment of departments delivering developmental courses require the name changes and the inclusion of another program. H. It is difficult to proceed with a proper discussion of a motion submitted to the Senate if the committee chair is not there to provide information on the committee¹s deliberation. ******************** ATTACHMENT 69/8 UAF FACULTY SENATE #69 FEBRUARY 10, 1997 SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE UAF FACULTY SENATE 1997-98 Calendar of Meetings Mtg. # Date Day Time Type Location 73 9/15/97 Monday 1:30 p.m audioconference WC Ballroom 74 10/13/97Monday 1:30 p.m face-to-face WC Ballroom 75 11/10/97Monday 1:30 p.m audioconference WC Ballroom 76 12/8/97 Monday 1:30 p.m face-to-face WC Ballroom 77 2/9/98 Monday 1:30 p.m face-to-face WC Ballroom 78 3/9/98 Monday 1:30 p.m audioconference WC Ballroom 79 4/6/98 Monday 1:30 p.m face-to-face WC Ballroom 80 5/4/98 Monday 1:30 p.m audioconference WC Ballroom FALL: Orientation for New Students - Sunday-Wednesday, August 30- September 3, 1997 Labor Day - Monday, September 1, 1997 Registration/Course Selection - Tuesday-Wednesday, September 2- 3, 1997 First Day of Instruction - Thursday, September 4, 1997 Thanksgiving Holiday- Thursday-Friday, November 27-28, 1997 Last Day of Instruction - Friday, December 12, 1997 Final Examinations - Monday-Thursday, December 15-18, 1997 Winter Closure - December 25, 1997-January 4, 1998 SPRING: Orientation for New Students - Monday-Tuesday, January 12-13, 1998 Registration/Course Selection - Tuesday-Wednesday, January 13-14, 1998 First Day of Class - Thursday, January 15, 1998 Alaska Civil Rights Day (no classes) - Monday, January 19, 1998 Spring Break - Monday-Sunday, March 16-22, 1998 Last Day of Instruction - Friday, May 1, 1998 Final Examinations - Monday-Thursday, May 4-7, 1998 ******************** ATTACHMENT 69/9 UAF FACULTY SENATE #69 FEBRUARY 10, 1997 SUBMITTED BY AD HOC COMMITTEE ON UNION/GOVERNANCE RELATIONS MOTION ======= The UAF Faculty Senate moves to RE-AFFIRM its position on salary/ compensation, locus of tenure, and post-tenure review as expressed in the following motions passed at UAF Senate meetings #56 and #63 with the further understanding that the position on post-tenure review articulates the preliminaries of a formative, rather than a summative, policy which is to be linked to faculty development. In so moving, the UAF Faculty Senate directs that these policy statements be transmitted to the appropriate committees of United Academics currently working on the contract proposal to be negotiated with the University of Alaska administration, the intent of this transmittal being that these Senate policy statements be incorporated in the contract proposal. EFFECTIVE: Immediately RATIONALE: The motion is presented in the spirit of solidarity and cooperation with United Academics concerning mandatory items of collective bargaining. United Academics committees are currently working on contract language and stand to benefit from the work of the UAF Faculty Senate insofar as it has spoken to these specific mandatory items of collective bargaining. The motion, furthermore, directly responds to Lawrence Weiss¹ memo to D. Lynch and P. Slattery of 2/2/97 inviting ³substantial contribution to the contract proposal.² Moreover, the UAF Faculty Senate reserves it right to pronounce on policy recommendations pertinent to faculty affairs, this consistent with AAUP's "Statement on Academic Government for Institutions Engaged in Collective Bargaining", in particular that "Collective bargaining should not replace, but rather should ensure, effective traditional forms of shared governance...Collective bargaining should ensure institutional policies and procedures that provide access for all faculty to participation in shared governance. Employed in this way, collective bargaining complements and supports structures of shared governance consistent with the "Statement on Government." ******************** United Academics-AAUP/AFT Lawrence D. Weiss, President c/o UAA Department of Sociology 3211 Providence Dr. Anchorage, AK 99508 office: (907)789-4671 E-mall: AFLDW@UAA.Alaska.edu MEMO 2/2/97 TO: Donald F. Lynch, President, UAF Faculty Senate Phil Slattery, President, Faculty Alliance FROM: Lawrence D. Weiss, President, united Academics SUBJECT: Faculty Governance I am pleased to report to you that at the recent December 19th meeting of the United Academics Executive Board the commitment to "sustain and enhance governance at the University of Alaska," as stated in the United Academics Constitution, was reaffirmed. The Executive Board charged the three Organizational Vice Presidents to coordinate with the faculty governance bodies (although there is some concern about the present status of faculty governance at UAS). Prof. Norm Swazo, Chair, UAF Faculty Senate Standing Committee on Faculty Affairs, has been appointed as a member of the negotiating pool from which the negotiating team will be selected. In this capacity Prof. Swazo enjoys maximum communication with the Executive Board. In addition the Board invites the UAF Faculty Affairs committee to make a substantial contribution to the contract proposal. Our intention as members of the Executive Board is to keep faculty governance as fully informed as possible regarding the development of a contract proposal. The current schedule Is to have a draft of the full contract proposal widely disseminated the week of February 24 along with public forums for maximum faculty input before we go to the table early March. Meanwhile, seven state-wide committees are hard at work putting together a first draft. For more information about the committees contact John French, Executive Vice President; Don Lynch, your Organizational Vice President; or me. I look forward to seeing you at our next Executive Board meeting Sunday February 16, 9-4, at the APEA offices, 825 College Road (452-2106). In addition I will be on your campus all day Monday the 17th. I would be most pleased to meet with any interested group or individual from early In the morning until mid-evening. Please call or E-mail me (contact information on letterhead) so we can make arrangements. ******************** The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its meeting #56 on March 20, 1995. The UAF Faculty Senate endorses the following Pay Raise Proposal and formula. PAY RAISE PROPOSAL STEPS IN RANK 1 2 3 4 5 6 YRS IN RANK 1,2 3,4 5,6 7,8 9,10 11,12 FORMULA ASSISTANT 1.00 1.04 1.08 1.12 ASSOCIATE 1.20 1.24 1.30 1,35 1.38 1.40 FULL 1.40 1.46 1.51 1.57 1.64 1.70 1. These step increases are to reflect increased faculty experience and are in addition to regular cost-of-living increases as provided by the Board of Regents. 2. Assistant Professors shall receive a 4% longevity increase for each step corresponding to every two years of university service (assuming a satisfactory or better evaluation.) 3. Upon promotion to Associate Professor, the faculty members will receive a salary of 20% higher than the base starting Assistant Professor salary. 4. Upon promotion to full professor, the faculty member will receive a base salary of 40% higher than the base starting Assistant Professor salary. 5 Associate Professors must be promoted to full Professor by their 12th year as Associate Professors or forego additional step increases. 6. Full Professors receive a 2% step increase after their 12th year at rank as full Professors. 7. All steps refer to appropriate, discipline based starting salaries. ******************** The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #63 on April 22, 1996: MOTION PASSED (1 nay) ============== The UAF Faculty Senate moves to recommend that the proposed language in Regents' Policy on locus of tenure (OX-01.05.2c) be amended as follows: CAPS = Additions [[ ]] = Deletions Faculty will be tenured [[within an academic unit of a community college, extended college or campus, or school or college of an MAU within the University of Alaska]] AT THE LEVEL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS, THE UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE, OR THE UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA SOUTHEAST. Faculty may transfer with tenure to another academic unit (E.G., DEPARTMENT, PROGRAM) in the same or another [[MAU]] UNIVERSITY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA SYSTEM only upon the approval of the faculty and the Chancellor of the receiving academic unit. EFFECTIVE: Immediately RATIONALE: Having been presented to the UAF Faculty Senate for formal review and recommendation, the most recent revisions to Regents' Policy ("Collection III: Faculty Policies," 04.04.04-07 and 10.09.01, 4th Draft) are found unsatisfactory in locating tenure "within an academic unit of a community college, extended college or campus, or school or college of an MAU within the University of Alaska." Revised language in 0X-01.05.2c, specifically the words "academic unit" and MAU," remain ambiguous and subject to interpretation which may undermine the award of tenure as a continuous appointment. "Academic unit" is, for the most part, an artificial administrative entity, all too readily subject to the contingencies of changing educational objectives and mission and corresponding reorganization of the academy. The UAF Faculty Senate's amendment to the proposed language, "at the level of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, The University of Alaska Anchorage, or the University of Alaska Southeast," seeks to assure that there will be no termination of an appointment with continuous tenure except as a bona fide formal discontinuance of a program or department of instruction, which discontinuance must "be based essentially upon educational considerations, as determined primarily by the faculty as a whole or an appropriate committee thereof" (cf. AAUP Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure). ******************** The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #63 on April 22, 1996: MOTION PASSED (unanimous) ============== The UAF Faculty Senate moves to recommend that the proposed language in Regents' Policy on Post-Tenure Evaluation (P OX-01.06) be amended as follows: CAPS = Additions [[ ]] = Deletions Tenured faculty members, INCLUDING ADMINISTRATORS HOLDING TENURED FACULTY STATUS, will be evaluated intensively [[at least]] every five years by peer faculty and administrators HAVING LINE AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY OF SUPERVISION (E.G., DEPARTMENT HEAD/CHAIR, SCHOOL/CAMPUS DIRECTOR, COLLEGE DEAN) OF THE TENURED FACULTY MEMBER. INASMUCH AS DETERMINATION OF FACULTY STATUS IS PRIMARILY A FACULTY RESPONSIBILITY, ADMINISTRATORS PARTICIPATING IN THE POST-TENURE EVALUATION PROCESS SHOULD CONCUR WITH THE PEER FACULTY JUDGMENT EXCEPT IN RARE INSTANCES AND THEN ONLY BY PROVIDING COMPELLING REASONS IN WRITING AND IN DETAIL. These evaluations will be conducted in accordance with the criteria and process for evaluation in Regents' Policy, University Regulation, and MAU rules and procedures on evaluation of faculty. NEITHER THE CRITERIA NOR THE PROCESS OF POST-TENURE EVALUATION WILL BE CONSTRUED AS EQUIVALENT TO THE PROBATIONARY EVALUATION OF TENURE-TRACK FACULTY, THE AWARD OF TENURE ITSELF SERVING AS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF A FACULTY MEMBER'S DEMONSTRATED COMPETENCE AS TEACHER, SCHOLAR, AND CITIZEN OF THE ACADEMY AT LARGE. THEREFORE, POST-TENURE EVALUATION MUST BE ESPECIALLY CAREFUL TO BE COMPLIANT WITH STANDARDS OF DUE PROCESS AND ACADEMIC FREEDOM, I.E., TEACHING, RESEARCH, PUBLIC SERVICE, AND EXTRAMURAL ACTIVITIES FREE OF CAPRICIOUS INSTITUTIONAL CENSORSHIP OR DISCIPLINE. MAU rules and procedures will include a process for remediation to address situations in which the competence and/or performance of a faculty member is deemed to be unsatisfactory. At any time prior to the scheduled evaluation, the TENURED faculty member's Dean or Director may, as a result of [[other]] PEER FACULTY evaluations, initiate processes to improve faculty performance [[which could include the post-tenure review process]]. Once a TENURED faculty member receives an unsatisfactory evaluation as a result of the intensive post-tenure review process, annual evaluations will take place until the TENURED faculty member receives a satisfactory POST-TENURE evaluation. THE YEAR IN WHICH A SATISFACTORY EVALUATION IS GIVEN WILL BE THE BASE YEAR FOR THE NEXT SCHEDULED INTENSIVE POST-TENURE REVIEW. Unsatisfactory evaluations REFLECTING [[AN]] THE TENURED FACULTY MEMBER'S unwillingness or inability to fulfill [[the]] A REASONABLE performance assignment for three consecutive years constitute grounds for termination for cause. 'CAUSE' SHALL BE UNDERSTOOD TO BE A DECLARATION OF INCOMPETENCE DIRECTLY AND SUBSTANTIALLY (1) IN THE FACULTY MEMBER'S RESPONSIBILITIES IN TEACHING, RESEARCH, AND SERVICE, AND/OR (2) FOR MORAL TURPITUDE. EFFECTIVE: Immediately RATIONALE: Regents' Policy revisions have been presented to the UAF Faculty Senate for formal review and recommendation on content. The section on Post- Tenure Evaluation is an entirely new addition to Regents' Policy concerning faculty status. The proposed amendment to policy seeks to highlight the UAF faculty perspective on the issue of post-tenure evaluation, and to do so in such a way as to safeguard the enduring attitude and standards endorsed by the American Association of University Professors and associated institutions of higher education. ******************** ATTACHMENT 69/10 UAF FACULTY SENATE #69 FEBRUARY 10, 1997 SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS Minutes of Curricular Affairs Meeting, January 20, 1997 Meeting Chaired by Maynard Perkins Minutes by Carol Barnhardt Submitted by Maynard Perkins, Chair of Curricular Affairs Attending: Sukumar Bandopadhyay, Carol Barnhardt, Gayle Gregory, Jerry McBeath, Terry McFadden, Maynard Perkins, Paul Reichardt, Madeline Schatz, Ann Tremarello, Jane Weber (Don Lynch for last part of meeting) AGENDA ITEMS 1. MEETING TIMES The meeting time for Spring Semester will continue to be 2:00 to 3:15 on Mondays. The next meeting will be on the 17th of February. 2. BYLAW CHANGE REGARDING CURRICULUM REVIEW COMMITTEE AND CORE REVIEW COMMITTEE DISCUSSION: A recommendation to add the Curriculum Review Committee and the Core Review Committee as subcommittees of Curricular Affairs is being discussed by several of the committees involved. Jerry McBeath indicated that a memo had been sent from Curriculum Review to Don Lynch stating no objections to being a subcommittee. ACTION: Maynard Perkins will report to the Administrative Committee that there is no direction on this recommendation from Curricular Affairs. 3. RESIDENCY CREDITS AS EFFECTED BY DISTANCE DELIVERY COURSES DISCUSSION: On December 6, 1996, Curricular Affairs began a discussion about issues involved in using distance delivered courses/credits as residency credits. The discussion was initiated in an effort to gather information to allow Curricular Affairs to eventually develop an appropriate motion regarding this issue. Discussion on January 20th provided additional background information on the multiple questions that will need to be answered before Curricular Affairs can develop an informed motion. Curricular Affairs will send a memo to all deans and departments with a request for feedback on this issue. Discussion of the draft memo and of the policy issues involved with "counting" distance delivered courses focused on the following: -- The memo to deans and departments will need to include information about the current offerings through UALC (i.e. printed info, web page info, E-Mail, people to contact); --It is important that UALC maintain a current Web page regarding course options; --Decisions about how to display UALC courses on BANNER need to be discussed (e.g. which MAU will receive credit? which department will receive credit? do credits "follow" the instructor of the course? should BANNER have more indicators that "U" for UALC courses-ones that would also designate the MAU? do individual departments currently know which of their courses are available through UALC?). ACTION: Maynard will provide Sheri with a memo to distribute to all deans and departments on all UAF campuses (copy of draft memo attached). In addition to requesting feedback through the memo, all Curricular Affairs members are asked to gather information from their own units. Maynard will query colleagues from UAA and UAS at the UALC meeting in February. 4. TRANSFER OF CREDIT WITHIN THE UA SYSTEM AS APPLIED TO GRADE OF D. DISCUSSION: Following discussion of issue at December 6th meeting, a motion to bring UAF into compliance with Regents Policy was reviewed. ACTION: The motion, as amended, was passed unanimously. (See agenda attachment 69/3.) 5. MOTIONS CONCERNING THE TRANSFER OF CORE DISCUSSION: Several questions-in regard to the draft motions as described below-were discussed: a. Any transfer, or former UAF, student who has completed a bachelor's degree from an accredited institution will be considered to have completed the equivalent of the baccalaureate core when officially accepted to another undergraduate degree program at UAF. b. Any transfer student who has completed the transfer Associate in Arts and Sciences, or Associate of Arts degree from one of the Washington community colleges listed on the attached pages, will be considered to have completed the lower division requirements of the baccalaureate core. Ann Tremarello has additional information on this. Questions/concerns from Committee members: --What are the implications of accepting students who do not have math, science, communication and library skills requirements comparable to those in the UAF CORE? --Rationale for accepting as core, credits from AA degree students from Washington institutions, but not AA credits from students who completed AA degrees previously in UA institutions? --Need to get complete copies of information on this issue (particularly Part B) to more people and especially to math and science departments ACTION: Ann will prepare a motion on this issue and send it to Jin Brown (with a copy to Maynard). She will bring Jin's concerns back to Curricular Affairs by February 17th. 6. DISCUSSION OF PETITION PROCESS This request evolved from the December Faculty Senate meeting following the discussion of the request to implement a special petition process for student with disabilities. DISCUSSION: The issues, and recommendations for solutions, need to focus on the petition process for all students, not just those with disabilities. Issues discussed included: --Memo from Cliff Lando --Questions about who is considered to have the "expertise" to review petitions - and at what point in the petition process does the department/discipline representative become involved in the decision (especially in CORE course petitions) --Big questions in the whole petition process: who see what and when? ACTION: Maynard will set up an ad hoc committee and it will report back to Curricular Affairs. Names suggested so far include Pat Lambert (Math) and Diane Preston (Students with Disabilities). 7. SECOND REVIEW CYCLE FOR COURSE SUBMITTALS DISCUSSION: The following information regarding a possible 2nd review cycle for course submittals was discussed. Currently UAF has a deadline of January 17, 1997 for New Trial Courses for Fall 1997. These are put out for the 10-day review and approval usually completed by mid-February. Another idea would be the end of January or first of February so that all approvals can be completed six week prior to the Priority Registration (usually the first week of April). The Provost is asking for action on this. Last year's figures on the number of course requests was reviewed but Ann indicated that these were not completely representative. Undergraduate Requests 2/20/96 5 4/12/96 6 Graduate Requests 2/20/96 2 3/11/96 1 4/22/96 2 7/19/96 1 Core Requests 2/20/96 2 4/12/96 4 All other requests came in between September and the Nov. 5 deadline. Currently there is 1 New course, 1 changed course, 1 drop course, and 1 Oral Intensive Designator request which will be reviewed with any trial requests at the end of January. Concerns expressed by Committee members: --Does this matter need to come to this committee or is it an administrative decision? --Jerry indicated that Curriculum Review will be meeting to take care of all Spring Semester business --Ann said that all changes need to be put in a publication somewhere and her concern is that the changes be made early enough to get into the catalog and/or the fall course schedule before pre- registration (there might be only one schedule published this year in April--not a second one published in August as has been done previously). --The Provost wants a second period of course changes and submissions and even though these might not be done in time to place in the catalog, the work would at least be done. --Concern with too much confusion already for students and we don't want to end up with a big supplement to the catalog. --Second semester changes could be for "house cleaning items" only. --Second semester changes for course changes only, not for program changes. ACTION: Maynard will put together a committee and he asked Jerry McBeath to coordinate it because of the work Jerry is currently doing with the Curriculum Review Committee. The committee with put together a recommended time line. Jerry will get this back to Curricular Affairs. 8. CORE COURSES AND EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATION AND CORE COURSES AND PETITION PROCESS DISCUSSION: Curricular Affairs needs more information on the two motions. ACTION: Maynard will try to get addition information on the first motion and the second motion will be sent to the newly-established Ad Hoc Committee that will review the whole petition process. 9. CATALOG DELETIONS DISCUSSION: Discussion of the Catalog deletions is on the agenda for the next Administrative Committee meeting. Curricular Affairs can choose to respond or act on this if appropriate (see memos from Jerry McBeath and Jack Keating for additional information on the issues involved). Concerns expressed by Committee members: --This is definitely a curricular issue. --Questions about the reasons for dropping courses from the Catalog if they are still valid-what are the differences between listing a course and dropping a course? --We need a better process for reviewing courses on a regular basis-one in which departments would be involved (and we need to develop policies on deleting courses if they are not offered for a certain number of years). --The catalog should more accurately reflect the courses that are offered. --The reasons for dropping may be valid but they should have been brought to the Senate since it is an academic action. --There are two issues involved here: the action itself and the process. ACTION: There was no motion from Curricular Affairs at this time. The meeting was adjourned at 3:15. ******************** ATTACHMENT 69/11 UAF FACULTY SENATE #69 FEBRUARY 10, 1997 SUBMITTED BY GRADUATE SCHOOL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Graduate School Advisory Committee - S. Hendricks, Chair January 29, 1997 Minutes The Graduate School Advisory Committee met Wed., Jan 29, 1997, from 1:00-2:15 in the Kayak Room. Present: David Smith, John Craven, Joe Kan, Susan Henrichs, Steve Sparrow, Curt Szuberla, Mark Oswood, Peggy Shumaker Excused: John Zarling l. GSAC set meeting times of 1:00-2:00 on Fridays for spring semester. GSAC elected Susan Henrichs chair for spring semester. Susan will contact committee members by e-mail regarding the next meeting. 2. The Faculty Senate is working on establishing staggered terms for members of GSAC. Procedures are already in place for selecting a new student representative. Any current members of GSAC willing to stay on for another year should contact the governance office. 3. Concerning clarification of time limits for earning degrees--This issue has been discussed in the GCAC. We concur with that committee's assertion that the clock should begin running when the student is admitted to a program. GCAC will resolve this issue, and draft clear wording for the catalog. 4. Concerning paperwork required by the graduate school, everyone agreed that the Graduate Study Plan should guide the student until the Advancement to Candidacy is filed. The Advancement to Candidacy will be the official document. 5. In response to students' concerns, GSAC is drafting a statement intended to generate discussion of graduate students¹ intellectual property rights. This draft will circulate via department and faculty senate channels. 6. The graduate school is NOT requiring departments or advisors to review within one week of registration all courses taken by students on tuition waivers or grant support. The memo stating this (sent out by Admissions and Records) was in error. 7. At the next GSAC meeting, we will discuss whether to continue the university requirement of GRE scores. Departments and/or programs may of course continue to require the scores if they wish. Dr. Kan will put out a memo to all graduate programs, asking for ideas and reactions to the issues discussed in items 3, 4, and 5. GSAC will appreciate responses from any concerned faculty or students. ******************** ATTACHMENT 69/12 UAF FACULTY SENATE #69 FEBRUARY 10, 1997 SUBMITTED BY CORE REVIEW COMMITTEE CORE Review Committee Report- Jin Brown, Chair Progress in Assessment of the CORE Curriculum The CORE Review Committee was given the responsibility of educational effectiveness evaluation of the CORE Curriculum in Fall of 1996. At that time we took the suggestion of Professor Dana Thomas and the University's Educational Effectiveness Evaluation Team and chose to initiate a pilot project this school year. The "Communications'' area of the CORE curriculum was chosen after the Communication Department volunteered to participate in the pilot group. Library Science was added in order that our first year's progress be in more than one area, but be manageable with our other responsibilities. While the three Departments involved in the pilot work (Communication, English, and Library Science) have initiated planning for assessment, two of those Departments have experienced personnel changes that have interrupted the ongoing planning. Alane Wilson has left Library Science and Dennis Stephens has assumed her regular duties along with maintaining his own. Joan Worley has recently stepped down from the EEE Team and from her Evaluation role in the English Department. Cynthia Walker has not yet named a replacement for Professor Worley in the evaluation planning. *** After working with Jim Ratcliff, the Assessment consultant who the UAF administration invited to campus for a seminar and workshops, we understand that the English Department has plans to incorporate a portfolio process into their evaluation procedures. *** Library Science was in the planning stages of assessing their own program when the Regent's plans were announced and will extend their self-assessment to provide information to the CORE Review. *** The UAF Communication Department has implemented an extensive assessment of its CORE service courses. Building on the restructuring of those courses that has been in process over the last three years, Communication has embedded student learning evaluation in a way that will not only provide quantitative and qualitative evaluation data on students passing through their courses, but done so in a way that will use the evaluation process to enact an innovative reflexive learning loop in each student's course experience. A detailed discussion of the Communication Department evaluation of CORE courses can be arranged for those interested. At this time, numerical data on student learning in the Fall semester (1996) is being loaded into a computer program (SPSS 7.0 for windows) for analysis. Six sections of the CORE service courses have video taped every student presentation of the first, third, and final speaking assignments. These procedures are in place as an ongoing aspect of evaluation in the courses. Also, in Fall, 1996, Graduate students working with Communication faculty began a process of surveying professors who teach "O" (upper division Oral) courses, seeking interest in a workshop that would assist in the assessment of oral performance in those courses. The workshop will introduce faculty to broad criteria by which oral presentations are evaluated by the Speech Communication Association and help adjust such criteria to the needs of specific disciplinary presentations. *** The CORE Review Committee has contacted each Department that presents courses in Perspectives on the Human Condition (letters on 10 November, 1996) and asked that department faculty who present the courses begin intra departmental discussions of how CORE courses will be evaluated. Further, each department has been asked to anticipate working with other departments which share CORE course presentations so that interdepartmental decisions can be made on those courses. Departments have been asked to have a plan for evaluation that could be implemented in Fall of 1997. It may be optimistic to anticipate that all Perspectives courses will be evaluated in the Fall semester, however the three year window that the Regents have given us suggests that we need interdepartmental cooperation and planning to begin immediately. *** The CORE Review Committee has sent forward a motion in regard to assessment. We believe that we must begin now to anticipate our responsibility for continuous reporting on evaluation, therefore we have made a motion that any future courses submitted for consideration of CORE inclusion must have an assessment plan as a part of the proposal and that such plans be commensurate to the assessment plans for other courses with which the suggested course will share credit fulfillment (e. g. Comm 300X with Phil 322X and PS 300X). We are attempting to only invent such wheels once for each requirement. While we must remain flexible with the evaluation of the CORE, just as we are with the CORE, there must be some guidelines in place. The CORE Review Committee believes anticipation is a better strategy than retrofitting.