Sheri Layral
	312 Signers' Hall
	474-7964   FYSENAT

For Audioconferencing:  Bridge #:  1-800-910-9680
				Anchorage:  561-9680

Monday, December 7, 1998
1:30 p.m. - 3:30 p.m.
Wood Center Ballroom

1:30	I	Call to Order - Ron Gatterdam			5 Min.
		A.	Roll Call
		B.	Approval of Minutes to Meeting #83
		C.	Adoption of Agenda

1:35	II	Status of Chancellor's Office Actions		5 Min.
		A.	Motions Approved:  
			1.	Motion to approved Unit Criteria for Music.
		B.	Motions Pending:  
			1.	Motion prohibiting faculty from 
				receiving a graduate degree from UAF.

1:40	III	A.	Remarks by Provost P. Reichardt    	5 Min.
			Questions    				5 Min.
		B.	Guest Speaker - Dana Thomas		15 Min.

2:05	IV	Governance Reports
	A.	ASUAF - J. Richardson   			5 Min.
	B.	Staff Council - B. Frey 			5 Min.
	C.	President-Elect's Report - R. Gatterdam  	10 Min.

2:25	V	Public Comments/Questions  			5 Min.

2:30		***BREAK***     				10 Min.

2:40	VI	New Business
	A.	Motion to amend the Academic Course and 	5 Min.
		Degree Procedures Manual to requires the 
		inclusion of a description of the student 
		learning outcomes assessment process for 
		new programs and revision for major 
		program changes, submitted by Curricular
		Affairs (Attachment 84/1)
	B.	Motion to establish a Departmental Honors 	5 Min.
		Policy, submitted by Curricular Affairs
		(Attachment 84/2)
	C.	Motion on Common Grading Policy, 		5 Min.
		submitted by Curricular Affairs (Handout)
	D.	Motion on Course Level Definitions, 	 	5 Min.
		submitted by Curricular Affairs (Handout)
	E.	Resolution on qualifications of new Board 	5 Min.
		of Regent members, submitted by Legislative 
		& Fiscal Affairs (Handout)

3:05	VII	Committee Reports 				20 Min.
	A.	Curricular Affairs - G. McBeath (Attachment 84/3)
	B.	Faculty & Scholarly Affairs - J. Yarie
	C.	Graduate & Professional Curricular Affairs - M. Whalen
			(Attachment 84/4)
	D.	Core Review - J. Brown (Attachment 84/5)
	E.	Curriculum Review - C. Basham
	F.	Developmental Studies - J. Weber (Attachment 84/6)
	G.	Faculty Appeals & Oversight - J. Kelley
			(Attachment 84/7)
	H.	Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement - 
			D. Porter
	I.	Graduate School Advisory Committee - L. Duffy
			(Attachment 84/8)
	J.	Legislative & Fiscal Affairs - S. Deal (Attachment 84/9)
	K.	Service Committee - K. Nance
	L.	Ad Hoc Committees

3:25	VIII	Informational Item  
	A.	Results of Evaluation Committee elections
		(Attachment 84/10)

3:25	IX	Members' Comments/Questions			5 Min.

3:30	X	Adjournment

DECEMBER 7, 1998


The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the New Degree Program 
Request (Format 3) and Major Program Change (Format 5) in the 
Academic Course and Degree Procedures Manual to include a full 
description of the student learning outcomes assessment process 
for new programs and revision for major program changes.

	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately

	RATIONALE:  	Development and implementation of student 
		learning outcomes assessment programs are professional 
		teaching duty and is also a requirement of our 
		institutional accreditation.  This motion brings us into 
		compliance with accreditation standards.  

DECEMBER 7, 1998


The UAF Faculty Senate moves to establish a Departmental Honors 
policy.  Criteria for award of departmental undergraduate honors 

	1.  	An overall GPA of 3.0 and 3.5 in the student's major
	2.  	Evidence of exceptional academic achievement in one 
		or more of the following areas:
		a.  	completion of significant research under guidance 
			of university faculty member;
		b.  	completion of a specific cluster of advanced 
			courses with a GPA of 3.5 or higher;
		c.  	completion of a senior thesis with distinction;
		d.  	score at or above the 85th percentile on specialty 
			GRE test or other "standard" test;
		e.  	completion of an outstanding portfolio of student 

	Departments wishing to award this honors designation will 
	submit a plan to the curricular affairs committee, indicating 
	the specific evidence of exceptional academic achievement 
	the department requires.  Departments with approved plans 
	are responsible for notifying the registrar's office of their 
	honorees one month before graduation.  Names of students 
	receiving departmental honors will be listed with other 
	student honorees in the commencement program, and the 
	designation will appear on students' transcripts.

	EFFECTIVE:  	1999-2000 academic year

	RATIONALE:  	UAF lacks a system for recognizing 
		outstanding graduates in their fields of study, which 
		this proposal would establish.  Also, departmental 
		honors will be an incentive spurring student 
		achievement in UAF's disciplines and programs.

DECEMBER 7, 1998

Minutes:  Curricular Affairs Committee, November 24, 1998

Present:  J. McBeath, Chair; H. Bader, Secretary; C. Barnhardt; C. 
Basham; A. Fitts; R. Illingworth

Ex-Officio:  A. Tremarello
Non-Voting Members:  G. Gregory; W. Martin; E. Murphy
Student Member:  K. Klasen

NOT present:  M. Perkins; J. Reynolds

	Outcome Assessment Briefing & Update - D. Thomas

1.  	Student Organizations and Recognition Policy
	Report on the registration and recognition of student 
organizations by the University.  Criteria for organization 
compliance with University rights and responsibilities.

	This issue is outside the scope of the subject matter 
authority for the CA committee.  However, the committee 
recognizes that there is currently no formal structure within the 
Faculty Senate to address such student activity issues.

	The committee voted to return the request back to 
Administrative Affairs and recommend a special task force be 
established within the Senate to address such student oriented 

2.  	Departmental Honors
	The committee addressed a request to implement 
independent Departmental Honors to be bestowed to students at 
graduation by academic departments for particularly accomplished 

	The committee discussion focussed upon the need to 
maintain high standards and continuity for such honors.  There was 
broad support for the concept and the belief that such a system 
would recognize excellence in a manner not now addressed by the 
current system.

	The committee approved a process for departmental requests 
for honors.  The process is a three step approach: (1) minimum GPA 
within UAF and the academic department; (2) requirement of extra 
work requirements in addition to those required for the degree, 
such as, but not limited to, faculty supervised research projects, 
senior thesis, and additional course work; (3) all such honors 
proposals must receive final approval from the CA committee.  
The committee forwarded a request for input and review from the 
campus honors program before making a final recommendation to 
the senate.  Honors would be listed upon the diploma after 
confirmation of completion.  Program is proposed to begin 
conferring honors for Fall 1999.  Submissions must be made by 
Departments no later than April 15, 1999.

Next Meeting:  January 26, 1999.  10:00 a.m.

DECEMBER 7, 1998

Report of the GPCA Committee Meeting
Nov. 11 1998, Chancellors Conference Room

Present:  Michael Whalen - Chair, Vikas Sonwalker, Clif Lando, 
Harikumar Sankaran, Joe Kan, Gayle Gregory, Dennis Stephens, 
Larry Duffy (GSAC), Dennis Schall (visitor Dept. of Ed.)

New Business

A.  Division of labor for review of graduate course/program 

B.  Discussion of changes in MAT program - Joe Kan

Changes necessitates adding 4 new courses and dropping 3 
courses. Only 9 credits of undergraduate course work permitted.  
Seven year cutoff for MAT -- clock starts when student applies 
for MAT program.  Most universities appear to be phasing out B.Ed. 
programs and moving towards MATs.  This change should therefore 
not adversely effect our competitiveness with other universities.

Action on MAT program will be taken once the program change 
paperwork has been reviewed.

C.  GSAC Recommended Motions - Larry Duffy

1.  For admission to UAF graduate programs, applicants must have 
an undergraduate GPA of 3.0.  If below a 3.0, applicants must 
submit the scores from a GMAT or GRE before being admitted.

GRE and GMAT are becoming less accessible.  Minimum admissions 
requirement - GPA of 3.0.  Individual departments would still be 
permitted to have more stringent requirements for admission.

Question concerning admittance of student with less than a 3.0 GPA who 
hasn't taken GRE.  Possible ways to deal with issue is to permit 
admittance based on appeal or petition to graduate school or 
permit conditional admittance for one semester.

GREs should probably be offered on UAF campus.  Joe Kan agreed to 
look into this possibility.

2.  Graduate credit is transferable within the UA system for 
courses where the student has received a grade of C or better.  For 
use in a specific graduate course, the student's graduate 
committee must approve and the transfer credit be clearly 
indicated in the graduate study plan.  Residency requirements for 
UAF graduate programs are 15 credits.

Grads shouldn't be prevented from transferring more than 9 
credits within UA system.  This would bring grad policy in line 
with undergrad.

Question was raised as to whether minimum grade for transfer 
should be a "C" or "B".  Consensus was that a "B" was more 
appropriate at the grad level.

Departments could have other standards that permit exclusion of 
some credit transfers.

3.  Master degree programs will declare at the departmental level:  
1) whether a research project is required for a non-thesis M.S. 
programs, and 2) if a project is required, whether it will be 
archived at the UAF library.

Recommended that projects should not be archived across the 
board.  Should permit individual programs to determine whether 
archiving is a degree requirement.

Action on all three GSAC recommendations deferred until 
course/program changes are dealt with.

D.  Establishment of Graduate Faculty at UAF - Joe Kan

Most universities have a graduate faculty designation.  Need to 
determine criteria to decide which faculty are considered 
graduate and which are not.  Could have a probationary period prior 
to awarding graduate faculty status.

E.  Next meeting scheduled for Tuesday, November 24, 1998,2:00 - 
3:30 p.m., Chancellor's Conference Room, 330 Signers

DECEMBER 7, 1998

Activities of the Core Review Committee, Fall 1998 - Jin Brown, 

The Core Review Committee has met every two weeks of the 
semester.  The primary matter on our table has been the organization 
and continuation of assessment matters.  We have selected the 
courses designated "Oral Intensive" and "Written Intensive" that are 
to be evaluated this semester.  Those faculty teaching selected 
courses were notified at the first of the semester to gather data for 
evaluation.  Evaluation materials are to be submitted to Governance 
at the end of the semester.  Our assessment timetable calls for 
Spring, 1999 Reports from several areas of the Perspectives on the 
Human Condition that have not yet submitted reports and which will 
then report again in Spring 2000 in order to return to our two-year 
rotation for reporting assessment (Foreign Languages; Political 
Science and Economics sharing the 100X political economy course; 
Sociology sharing the 100X cultures course).  Also in Spring 1999 we 
anticipate first reports from Mathematics, from the Natural 
Sciences, and from the College of Rural Alaska in regard to courses 
offered in the Core.  

The Committee has acted on petitions to the Core curriculum.  Again, 
the overall number of petitions continues to be very low and 
manageable.  The continuing largest number of requests for 
exemption are addressed to the "breadth/depth" selection of the 
Natural Sciences.

The Committee has approved nine new courses to bear the "O" (oral 
intensive) designation, two new courses to be "W" courses, and one 
to be both "O" and "W."  The Committee is concerned that these 
numbers are considerably lower than most semesters.  Noting 
current research regarding the significance of writing and speaking 
across the curriculum to graduating students seeking employment, 
to entry level employees in virtually any organizational setting, and 
to career mobility in virtually any setting, the Committee intends to 
renew efforts across the University to encourage programs and 
departments to initiate and maintain these important efforts.  We 
feel that it is of great importance that the baccalaureate experience 
of our students includes as much speaking and writing experience as 
possible.  Further, we believe that students who graduate from UAF 
should understand the expectations of their chosen professions in 
regard to these necessary skills.

The Committee has acted on various other academic matters such as 
courses dropping or changing the "O" and/or "W" requirements of 

In cooperation with Professor Dana Thomas and the Educational 
Effectiveness Evaluation Team, the Committee is sending two 
members to assessment meetings during this school year.  Tom 
Riccio has a conference scheduled immediately in Atlanta, David 
Bantz will attend a session in San Antonio in April.

The Chair of Core Review has just returned from a disciplinary 
conference in New York where his focus was on assessment sessions 
and short courses. 

DECEMBER 7, 1998

Minutes of The Developmental Studies Committee
November 12, 1998, Wood Center Conference Room A

Attending:  Rich Carr, Jerah Chadwick, Richard Clausen, George 
Guthridge, Cindy Hardy, Marjie Illingworth, Ruth Lister, Wanda 
Martin, Joe Mason, Greg Owens, Kay Thomas, Lisa Thomas, Jane 

Visiting:  Delena Norris-Tull and Kelly Dickerson

Old Business:

Rural Alaska Science and Math Network:
	Delena Norris-Tull and Kelly Dickerson attended by 
teleconference to bring us up to date on this project, a grant to 
CRA through the office of Naval Research to develop distance-
delivered instruction to Alaska Native and rural students to 
prepare them for college level math and science courses.  These 
courses will help rural students who attend high schools that are 
not equipped to offer anything beyond a middle school general 
science class, and prepare more rural students to enter math and 
science-related careers.  The grant--$1.9 million over five years-
will be used to develop these courses and to hire math and science 
faculty for the remote sites.  Delena and Kelly are holding 
meetings with rural math and science faculty, have a meeting 
scheduled with Anchorage faculty and have already met with Mark 
Oswood in Fairbanks.

	In addition to the Developmental Science course, they will be 
developing another core science course, possibly an 
interdisciplinary science course for rural campuses.  They are 
spending this year in planning and hope to have courses ready for 
fall semester.

	These courses could serve as a model for a Developmental 
Science course here in Fairbanks.  Ruth expressed interest in this 
especially for the needs of the pre-nursing program at TVC.  
Delena invited Ruth to send interested faculty and will notify her 
of audioconferences, so they can sit in.  Currently those 
developing the math curriculum are meeting every other week for 
a half-hour teleconference.  The science course will be developed 
the same way, later in the year.

Class Sizes:
	Marjie reported for Ron on the information he's gathered on 
this topic.

	Ron looked at a Ph.D. dissertation in Communication by Mahla 
Strohmeyer, in which she looked at student comfort in the 
classroom, using class size as one of her variables.  She reported 
that 23% of the students in her study reported that large classes 
decreased their comfort in the classroom.  This finding crossed 
ethnic and age groups.  Those who preferred large classes 
preferred them because they could sleep in class, skip class, or 
not participate!

	A survey of e-mail responses from a broad spectrum of 
colleges indicates that the most common class size for DEVE is 
16-20 students.  Ron reported that those with higher class sizes 
expressed concern about having larger classes.  He reported, too 
that the NADE standard for these classes is 18 students, with no 
more than 40% part-time faculty of the total faculty teaching 
Developmental classes.

	Currently, DEVE classes cap at 25 and DEVM classes cap at 
30.  George reported that the cap on his distance delivery classes 
has raised to 25 in the last two years and that this has become so 
time-consuming that students don't get the help they need.  Other 
concerns expressed include the assumption, with higher class 
caps, that students will drop anyway and bring the class down to a 
manageable level, an assumption which works against goals of 
retention and student success.  Richard asked if there was any 
way we could track this using BANNER, but Wanda reported that 
the people who could help us do this are too busy right now with 
other projects.  Our only option is to continue tracking by hand.  
George suggested that we look for information from other 
universities.  Ron will follow up on this, says Marjie.

Outcomes Assessment:
	Jane reminded us that the remainder of this year should be 
spent working on Outcomes Assessment.  We developed a 
preliminary plan last May and have been working on tracking.  Greg 
will have all the Fall '94 DEVE and DEVM students tracked to this 
semester.  Ruth reminded us that the deadline for the final plan in 
January 15.

	Jane will get copies of the May plan for us to review at the 
next meeting.  Marjie will bring copies of NADE outcomes 
assessment forms.  Wanda expressed a concern that we develop a 
form so that everyone collects information consistently.

Influx of DEV students in 2002:
	Ruth reported that President Hamilton is looking at this.  It 
is to our advantage to say what we intend to do to address the 
needs of these students.  Kay reported that in Wisconsin as 
similar high school exit test resulted in 30% of students taking 
the test seeking community resources to help them pass the test 
in Math.

DEVS 189:
	The approval for this course number was sent to the Senate 
Office, which referred it back to us for final approval.  We did.

New Business:

Mandatory Placement:
	Marjie has been working with the UAF Retention Committee.  
They have been discussing mandatory testing and placement for 
students below the ACT/SAT cutoff.  They would like to see this 
committee come out with a position on this. 

	Discussion of this included concern that BANNER can't check 
for prerequisites for a year and a half.  It's important that 
students not face more bureaucratic roadblocks and that, if 
mandatory testing is in place, that students without it be caught 
in advising.  Ruth suggested that there are two issues:  mandatory 
testing and mandatory placement.  Wanda suggested that if 
placement test scores were included on BANNER, that there be a 
way to keep the system flexible for individual advising.  Marjie 
reminded us of the idea of a Developmental Semester, where 
students enter as part of a developmental peer group.

The next committee meeting will be Dec. 10, 2-3:30 p.m., Wood 
Center, Conference Room A.  We will address Outcomes 

DECEMBER 7, 1998


PRESENT:  Godwin Chukwu, Fred Dyen, Ray Gavlak, John Kelley 
(Chair), Tara Maginnis, Pham Quang, Richard Stolzberg, George 

ABSENT:  Kristy Long, James Ruppert, David Verbyla, SOEd (Not yet 

VISITOR:  Michael Pippenger, United Academics

The committee met on Wednesday, November 18, 1998 in the 
Chancellor's conference room from 1 to 2pm.

	1.  The minutes of the third meeting of the Appeals and 
Oversight Committee were approved.  George Guthridge was 
welcomed to the committee.

	2.  Tara Maginnis was elected Co-Chair of the Appeals and 
Oversight committee.  The purpose of the Co-Chair is to preserve 
continuity of committee memory and procedures and serve as 
chair during the absence of the existing chairperson.  The Co-chair 
will succeed as chairperson of the committee.

	3.  Mike Pippenger presented a brief review of his 
association with the committee and review of his  memorandum  
outlining how the committee can best work with United 
Academics on Appeals Boards.  The committee was asked to 
review the previously distributed memorandum, make suggested 
changes if any and approve or disapprove. The committee voted to 
approve the suggested arrangement for selection of faculty for 
service on Appeal Boards.

	The Faculty Appeals/Oversight committee will act as a pool 
to be drawn upon to act as the United Academics representatives 
to the Appeal Board.  The Chair of the Faculty Appeals and 
Oversight Committee will act as the convener of the  Board 
picking from the Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee 
members of the United Academics Bargaining Unit who will serve 
on the particular Appeals Board.  The Chair or designee of the 
Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee will serve as Chair of a 
particular Appeals Board.  The committee approved the intent of 
the memorandum.  Mike Pippenger will present this management 
plan to the United Academics governing body for approval.  Upon 
receipt of approval the Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee 
will present a motion to the Faculty Senate.

	4.  The committee was made aware through the governance 
office that the Faculty Senate was concerned about plans and 
procedures for review of the Chancellor.  We were advised that a 
presentation would be made to the committee.  Since no 
presentation was made we entered into preliminary discussions.

	The Faculty Senate passed a motion (Meeting 23, December 
17,1990) regarding procedure for the evaluation of the Chancellor.  
The procedure is codified in Board of Regents' policy. The Senate 
urged the Regents and President to consult with faculty as a 
crucial part of this evaluation. The committee suggests that the 
Administrative Committee of the Senate suggest that the Senate 
President contact the University President and President of the 
Board of Regents to suggest that a decision be as to where an 
evaluation of the chancellor be centered (1) In the Senate, (2) 
through the Appeals and Oversight Committee or (3) an Ad Hoc 
committee established by the Senate.

	5.  A set of documents relating to past reviews of UAF 
administrators including lists of previous administrative reviews 
was circulated to the committee prior to this meeting. The 
committee was only able to engage in a preliminary discussion 
before adjournment.  A suggestion was made that the committee 
make a motion to the Senate to identify criteria concerning which 
Deans and Directors should be evaluated.  A subcommittee was 
established to discuss evaluate past practices and make 

	6.  Next meeting: December 2, 1 to 2pm, Chancellors 
Conference Room.

DECEMBER 7, 1998

Graduate School Advisory Committee  - Larry Duffy, Chair

The GSAC met on November 30 and discussed the following issues:

1.  Increase in minimum salary rates for graduate students.  It 
was agreed that the minimum should not be increased at this time.  
Several members believed it would not have a major impact on 
recruiting and may cause problems for researchers funding 
graduate student off grants.  It was recommended that the 
graduate school commission a survey by discipline to determine 
how UAF compares nationally.

2.  A minor revision to the Graduate Student Annual Report form 
was recommended.  A goals statement for the upcoming year 
would be recommended.

3.  The committee recommends that centralization of the graduate 
student admissions process occur under the graduate school dean.  
A full time check should be dedicated to graduate student 
admissions in the Admissions Office or the staff should be 
increased in the graduate school.

4.  The committee discussed the pros and cons of having a 
graduate faculty listing.  This was viewed as a way to honor and 
encourage faculty who mentor students who graduate.

DECEMBER 7, 1998

The Legislative and Fiscal Affairs Committee had its most recent 
meetings on November 18 and December 2.  On the agenda were the 
following items.

1.  The Administrative Committee requested that the LFA 
committee produce a document/resolution to send to Governor 
Knowles regarding criteria for consideration when appointing 
individuals to the Board of Regents.  This document will be 
presented under New Business at the December 7 Senate meeting.

2.  Inquiries into what colleges do with monies that come from 
lab/course fees.  A report is enclosed.

Preliminary planning for activities in the coming semester.  We 
feel that there will be much to do in the area of communicating 
with legislators in Juneau, especially considering the current 
climate of plummeting oil prices.


MEMO TO:  Faculty Senate, Legislative and Fiscal Affairs 
FROM:  Scott Deal, Chair, LFA

	This semester a department chair in CLA made inquiries 
about the appropriation of course/lab fees to respective 
departments.  The question was, do all of the course/lab fees go 
back to the department where the fee originated, or is a portion 
skimmed off the top to help finance a particular college's general 
fund?  Or, are the course fee dollars used to replace budget 
appropriations to the respective departments?  In a legislative 
and fiscal affairs committee meeting, we decided to investigate 
the issue, inquiring at two colleges; CLA and CSEM.  John Craven 
made inquiries at CSEM, and I did the same at CLA.  The response 
appears to be the same, which is that all funds are handled in a 
reasonable manner, but each unit must pay close attention to the 
details at all times.  Of particular importance is the situation in 
which a department prepares materials for a course that is then 
under enrolled.  The department has spent the money, but may not 
fully recover its cost, and in addition is then required to make up 
the loss from other of its accounts.  Hence, great care must be 
taken in selection of the amount to be charged for the course/lab 
fee.  Additionally, in the event of a windfall of dollars, each unit 
is responsible to request that additional amount.  It will not 
automatically be transferred to the unit, but must be requested.  
We found no evidence of requests that had been denied.  If the 
money is not requested it simply goes into the college general 
fund.  Very clear explanations of how the system works were 
kindly provided by Irene Downes, Administrative Assistant in the 
Physics Department, and Judy Brainerd, Fiscal Officer, CLA.  Their 
accounts follow:

Irene Downes:

"Every year each department submits a continuation budget to 
their respective fiscal officer.  In our case, that is Joan Roderick, 
Executive Officer for CSEM.  In our continuation budget, we state 
how much money we need to operate for personnel dollars as well 
as non-personal funds (commodities and services,) and we also 
project how much money we are likely to bring in for lab fees.  In 
our case, we projected $8,000 for the entire FY99.  When we 
receive our budget award at the beginning of the fiscal year, the 
lab fee projection is listed as a liability or negative amount.  As 
we received lab fees from enrollments, the negative amount is 
reduced by the amount of income.  If we receive more income than 
we projected, than the surplus is given to the department for our 
use.  For example, if we project $8,000 and we actually receive 
$10,000, then I submit a budget revision to have the $2,000 
transferred into our account for spending (usually into 
commodities).  Please note, that if the budget revision is not 
requested, then the surplus does not go to the respective 
department.  The down side of this scenario is if we receive less 
than the projected amount in lab fees then we realize a budget 
shortfall.  For example, if our projection is $8,000 and we receive 
only $7,000, then we essentially take a $1,000 cut in our budget.  I 
guess you could look at this process as sort of a quota system.  
Just one last comment: the projection for lab fees must be 
consistent with previous years or the fiscal officer will make an 
adjustment in the submitted continuation budget.  In other words, 
there is no cheating allowed by saying that you will only receive 
$2,000 in lab fees when you know you will actually receive 
$10,000.  The lab fee is not a vessel for making money for the 
department by any stretch of the imagination!  I hope this helps 
with your report, and if you need additional information or more 
clarification, please don't hesitate to ask."

Judy Brainerd:

"When a department has a lab fee charged for a particular course, 
the lab fee goes back to the departmental account under the 
student lab/materials fee account code 9159 (as revenue).  Once 
the department has reached the budgeted amount for lab fees, they 
can request approval from the Dean to allow them to spend the 
additional fees.  In the past, the CLA Dean has always approved 
this request.  If the department does not reach the budgeted 
amount for lab/materials fees, they must then decrease their 
departmental spending by that amount.  I do watch the department 
lab/materials fees, and remind departments to either request 
approval or decrease departmental spending, depending upon what 
the lab/materials fees amount is compared to the budgeted 
amount.  If the department does not request approval to spend the 
excess lab/materials fees, the excess does not automatically go 
back to their department to spend.  If you need additional 
information or clarification please let me know."

Information provided by Provost Reichardt, Vice Chancellor 
Williams, and Betty Hoch, Director of Financial Services, is given 
below for completeness of the record.

Respectfully submitted,

Scott Deal
Chair, Legislative and Fiscal Affairs Committee


Memo to Provost Reichardt on November 4, 1998


The Faculty Senate's Legislative and Fiscal Affairs Committee has 
done its best in the political ring and now wants to play in the 
money department for a while.  We have been asked to look at how 
the money collected as fees for classes is handled by the 
university, in particular its distribution back to the department in 
which a course is taught.  You would be the local expert on CSEM's 
history, so I am coming to you to ask how that issue was handled 
when you were running the shop.  Unfortunately, Gordon jumped 
ship, so someone on the committee will have to do extra research 
for CLA.  Do you have any knowledge of their policy and/or the 
policies in other colleges or schools?  Of particular interest is if 
this money (which appears as income to the university, if my 
memory from the rat force is correct) is returned independent of 
all other budget activity with a department.  Is there a penalty for 
going good work by folding it into the overall budget process?

Thanks, John


Date:  Thu, 05 Nov 1998 21:01:38 -0600
To:  "John D. Craven" 
From:  Paul Reichardt 
Subject:  Re:  Course and lab fees

As far as I know all these course fees are dumped into 
departmental accounts, irrespective of the rest of the 
department's budget.  In CSEM I assume this always happened 
because I never got a complaint that any anticipated $ was 
missing.  To my knowledge, this is the way it works for all depts. 
at UAF.  However, the skeptic would ask, "How would a dept know 
if a few bucks got skimmed off?"  I suspect that Frank Williams 
could give you an answer from the admin services/ budget 




An earlier note to Paul Reichardt and his reply are below.  What 
can you contribute, both from experience as a dean and in your 
present job?  Thanks for you help.



Frank Williams replied to the quiry:

Date:          Sun, 8 Nov 1998 06:02:40 -0900
To:            "John D. Craven" 
From:        "Frank L. Williams" 
Subject:      Re: lab fees and the like
Cc:             Betty Hoch ,

I don't know of cases where the fees don't go back to the 
department.  In fact, when different engineering department 
faculty taught the core engineering courses like ES 101, the 
windfall fees did go to the department of record.  Having said that, 
I do not know about every place else.  It would seem pretty odd for 
the college or school to rip off the fees since they are justified on 
the basis of specific costs for the course - laboratory supplies, 
etc.  By copy of this, I am asking Betty Hoch to work with Tim 
Bauer to help prepare a short description of what Adm Services 
believes happens with the fees.  Of course if we know of any 
"special" circumstances we will bring them to your attention.  To 
know what each dean does, I am afraid you'd have to contact them 


DECEMBER 7, 1998


Below are the result of the recent election for the Promotion/ 
Tenure Review Committe and the Pre- and Post-tenure Evaluation 



The following faculty have been nominated for the Promotion/Tenure 
Review Committee.  Please vote for seven (7) candidates.  

___  Ron Barry, Assoc. Professor  (CSEM, Mathematical Science)
___  Claudette Bradley-Kawagley, Assoc. Professor  (School of Ed.)
___  Peter Cornwall, Assoc. Professor  (CLA, Social Sciences)
___  Vidyadhar Kamath, Professor  (CNRDM/SME)
___  Jonah Lee, Professor  (CSEM, Engineering)
___  Jenifer McBeath, Professor  (CNRDM/SALRM)
___  Sathy Naidu, Professor (SFOS)
___  David Porter, Professor  (CNRDM/SOM)
___  W. Roger Powers, Professor  (CLA, Languages & Culture)
___  James Ruppert, Professor  (CLA, English & Humanities)
___  William Schneider, Professor  (CLA, Library)
___  Gerald Shields, Professor (CSEM, Biology/Wildlife)
___  Todd Sherman, Assoc. Professor  (CLA, Arts & Communication)
___  Sheryl Stanek, Assoc. Professor  (ACE)
___  Richard Stolzberg, Professor  (CSEM, Chemistry)


The following faculty have been nominated for the Pre- and Post-
Tenure Evauation Committee.  Please vote for seven (7) candidates.

___  Sukumar Bandopadhyay, Professor  (CNRDM/SME)
___  Roy Bird, Professor  (CLA, English & Humanities)
___  Don Carling, Professor  (CMRDM/SALRM)
___  Deben Das, Professor  (CSEM, Engineering)
___  Sven Ebbesson, Professor (SFOS)
___  Perry Gilmore, Assoc. Professor  (School of Education)
___  Thomas Jahns, Assoc. Professor (ACE)
___  John Keller, Professor  (CSEM, Chemistry)
___  Margaret Lee, Assoc. Professor  (CLA, Languages & Culture)
___  John Lehman, Professor  (CNRDM/SOM)
___  Tamara Lincoln, Assoc. Professor (CLA, Library)
___  Janice Reynolds, Professor  (CLA, Social Sciences)
___  Mitch Roth, Professor  (CSEM, Mathematical Science)

	Return to:  UAF Faculty Senate, 312 Signers' Hall, Fairbanks, 
	AK  99775    Ballots must be received by 3:00 p.m., November 
	30, 1998.