I The meeting was called to order by President Heyne at 1:37 p.m. A. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Alexander, B. Curda, L. Bandopadhyay, S. Gerlach, C. Beget, J. Kelley, J. Bischak, D. Morgan, J. Biswas, N. Nance, K. Braddock, J. RaLonde, R. Carlson, R. Summerville, S. Craven, J. Wade, C. Creed, J. Weingartner, T. Hallsten, D. He'bert, M. Heyne, E. OTHERS PRESENT: Illingworth, R. Abramowicz, K. Jennings, M. Ducharme, J. Juday, G. Gregory, G. Layer, P. Keating, J. Lynch, D. Layral, S. McBeath, G. (Naske, C.) Martin, W. McFadden, T. Wadlow, J. McLean-Nelson, D. Perkins, M. Pippenger, M. Reynolds, J. Schatz, M. Seifert, R. Swazo, N. Thomas, D. Walworth, J NON-VOTING MEMBERS PRESENT: NON-VOTING MEMBERS ABSENT: Hayes, J. (A. Wells) - ASUAF 1 graduate student Hedahl, G. - Dean, CLA Scholle, M. - President, UAFSC Tremarello, A - Director, A&R Alexander, V. - Dean, SFOS B. The minutes to Meeting #61 (February 5, 1996) were approved as distributed via e-mail. C. The agenda was approved as distributed via e-mail. II Status of Chancellor's Office Actions A. Motions Approved: 1. Motion to approve the BFA in Theatre. 2. Motion to approve the deletion of the M.Ed. in College Student Personnel Administration. 3. Motion to amend Grade Appeals Policy 4. Motion to amend Grade Appeals Policy B. Motions Pending: none III GUEST SPEAKER - Brenda Wilcox, Alumni Director The UAF Alumni Association has taken on a new character. During Program Assessment the Alumni Association took a 70 percent cut. They are trying to become totally self-sufficient, independent, and membership based. The Alumni Association is an American invention. It started with early private universities. These private universities learned that their role with students was very important to the success rate and their stature afterwards. They teach their current students that they have an obligation to return to their campus and to support that university, either with time, money, energy, or through their business. This is the direction UAF needs to go as a public university. We need to give students a good experience while they are here on campus and let them know they have a responsibility or obligation to return with support for UAF. UAF has 18,000 alumni. Only 2,500 are active. On campus there are 200 employees that are UAF graduates and only 10 percent of them are active alumni. The UAF Alumni Association is going through a large membership drive during the month of April. Letters are being sent to employees that are alumni asking them to join. Brenda asked for faculty support in making the UAF alumni association the best. Dr. Knoke's senior class is helping formulate a database; Dr. Milner's class in consumer behavior is helping develop the script and other items for the telethon; and students are helping paint signs. The alumni association is also helping the engineering students collect money for their steel bridge project. The association would like to make the alumni database available to the various deans and directors to help make attachments with their former students. Please come by and visit the office in 201 Constitution Hall. Let them know how they can help you and please help them in giving students the very best opportunities and experiences. Four years from now this experience will lead them to know that they are expected to give back support to this campus. IV Comments from Chancellor Wadlow - Chancellor Wadlow indicated that she was pleased that the Senate had an opportunity to hear about the re-energizing of the alumni association. UAF calls upon the association to help with recruiting in our enrollment efforts. Having a strong enrollment program is the essence of a healthy university. UAF is striving to do that by involving elements throughout the entire university. A lot of the efforts people have undertaken over the last year and a half are really paying off, particularly in keeping students who come to UAF. Our retention rate is indeed improving. We still have some serious issues connected with recruiting students for fall. Our applications continue to be down a little over this time a year ago. One of the key elements is phone calls made by the deans, faculty, staff and students to prospective students. We know that is a major step we can take to increase the number of students who actually come from those who apply. A year ago we decided to differentiate between the publicity that was used in Alaska and the promotional literature used in the lower 48. This was on the basis of a recommendation from the enrollment strategy board. This has been very successful. Please continue in your recruitment efforts. Chancellor Wadlow mentioned at the beginning of the year about the establishment of a University of Alaska-wide task force to address the issue of how to improve the university's educator preparation program in rural Alaska. At the president's request the Chancellor chairs this team of 14 people. The team is primarily non-university people. The non-university members of the team will be giving a report to the Board of Regents at the April meeting. Commissioner Shirley Holloway from the Department of Education; Edna MacLean, President of Ilisagvik College in Barrow; Carl Rose, Executive Director of the Association of Alaska School Boards; and Sara Scanlon, Vice-President of Corporate Affairs, NANA Corporation will give the presentation. They will focus on the standard diagram that the team now uses. It point out at the center that our client in this effort is the student, the child in rural Alaska. If we are going to improve education for Alaska's rural and native students there will be three major components. We will be working in partnership with local constituents, seeking more native educators, and seeking new models for educator preparation. The prevailing ideas coming out of the discussion include the principle that a strong rural educator preparation program will involve partnerships among the University of Alaska and local groups that does the following: has shared governance that involves all participants and their roles; delivers education based on mastery of standards; meets local standards as well as pertinent international, state and national standards; and shares the cost of delivering education to the rural areas. Comments from Provost Jack Keating - A major initiative going on systemwide and with the Board of Regents' over the last year has been revision of the policies. These relate to the organization of the University, faculty procedures related to promotion, tenure, etc., and the research mission of the university. Recently there was a meeting of the Board of Regents' Committee on Academic and Student Affairs in which they held a first reading of the faculty policies. Minor revisions were made last week and they should be out for faculty review soon. These policies are called Collection 3 and are most important for faculty to review. Collection 2, which discusses research, will be read to the Board of Regents at the next meeting. Most of that collection has been moved to what is called a Handbook on Conduct of Research. This will not be Regents' Policy but more of a living document on how research should be conducted in the system, and each MAU will have their own supplemental regulations and procedures. A second initiative that started this last month has been an attempt to assess the effectiveness of the programs relative to the recommendation, not only the accreditation, but also the Board of Regents' new policy in which they are asking all programs be assessed routinely. A small committee, chaired by Dana Thomas, will conduct that assessment for the campus. This first year they will look at a small subset of programs, enlarge it next year, and have all the academic programs reviewed in three years. There needs to be coherence with the student support side, as we work toward a university-wide assessment plan. This is critical for our fifth-year accreditation review. Units may be contacted over the next two to three years by representatives of the committee. They will first be looking at the General Education Requirements, especially the writing requirement. There is a new committee on campus to help identify areas where policy and/or other interventions need to be made for more effective delivery of distance education and collaborative education between the MAUs. They have targeted ways to make it easier for faculty who would like to do this and what resources are available. They will be looking at how distance delivery should affect faculty load. This committee will be meeting regularly over the next year to address these issues. The whole issue of faculty distribution of salaries is underway. There is a central committee that reports to Keating that has representatives from each unit. They are addressing the equity issues cross-campus and cross-units. The various units have made different progress toward their own particular committees. The purpose of the central committee is to make sure that each of the colleges are talking to each other and giving help where progress has been made. Some are very close to finalizing their process. We do have a mandate to finish this by the end of the contract year for faculty. There will be a Convocation, April 4, 1996, from 1:00 to 2:00 that will address the advances made on the Strategic Plan over the last three years. The accreditation group indicated that while we know the strategic plan, we haven't talked about progress made since that plan was adopted. The theme of the convocation will be divided up into teaching, research, and service with the general heuristic of the strategic plan and advances made over the last two years. The second half of the convocation will be the recognition of the Usibelli award winners from this year's service, teaching and research nominees. An informal social event will happen in the evening. Keating encouraged all to come to the convocation. This will be a moment to reflect backward to see where we have come and talk about where we see ourselves going in the next year or two. Michael Pippenger asked about the annual salary raises and what happens after the units set their policy. Keating indicated that the units will set their policy and make recommendations to central administration which will review the policy to make sure that it was fair and critical, and that there was faculty involvement in the actual determination of recommendations. There is a proportionate amount from the salary pool available. The first mission of the central committee is to look at internal inequities by unit. If there is money left over the committee will look at unit relationship to the Oklahoma State survey. The policies include four categories that the one percent can be used for--retention, promotion, equity, and extremely meritorious performance. This year we do not have to fund promotions. We haven't used it yet for retention and are not looking at extreme meritorious performance. We are basically concentrating on the equity and internal equity in that administrative pool. Next year's increases will have to be taken by reallocation if they are not funded by the legislature. There is no funding formula built into Regents' policy. James Walworth asked about provisions for assigning teaching credit for students taught at other MAUs, whether that be through distance delivery or conventional teaching. Keating indicated that those policies are being addressed systemwide. The principal we have asked to be maintained is that the student credit hours follow the instructor. Tuition distribution is another issue under consideration because of the variety of ways tuition is distributed by the MAUs to their extended sites. That has not been totally resolved. Dana Thomas asked about the Justice program admission requirement. Keating indicated that he denied it and said that he would not like to raise unequal fences to the admission to majors. When barriers are unevenly created to enter majors, other majors become over-enrolled. Keating felt that it would create a difficult problem is every unit came with proposals to limit their majors. Keating welcomes a college-wide discussion on this. V Governance Reports A. ASUAF - A. Wells ASUAF met on Sunday and voted to approve the deletion of the Library and Information Technology Users Committee from the UAF Governance Committee. The ASUAF Senate Retreat will be held on Saturday, March 30 at the Copper Lane House. UAF Faculty and Administration are welcome to attend. ASUAF Presidential elections will be held Tuesday and Wednesday, April 16 and 17, 1996. Polling booths will be set up in the Wood Center, the Lola Tilly Commons, and the Downtown Center. ASUAF Presidential debates are set for Tuesday, April 9, 1996, 1:00-2:00 pm in the Wood Center multilevel lounge and Wednesday, April 10, 1996, 3:00-5:00 pm at Rural Student Services. News of the extension of the add/drop period was received by the ASUAF Senate with great appreciation. Anita thanked the Faculty Senate and the UAF Administration for meeting the needs of the students. B. Staff Council - No report was available C. President's Report - E. Heyne Eric's written report was attached to the agenda. Eric indicated that Senate elections were taking place within each College. Senators are asked to check with unit offices to help out where needed. Eric spoke about his trip to Nome where he participated in two audio-conferenced courses. He asked that Senators hold up the audio microphones and speak directly into them. Rich Seifert asked about Collection 3. Don Lynch indicated Collection 3 is the key document affecting faculty's professional life and all faculty should review it. Everyone involved in research should look at Collection 2. Keating cautioned everyone to wait for the final draft on Collection 3 because there have been some changes. Eric encouraged everyone to make suggestions to the Governance Office. This office will distribute them to all involved. Michael Pippenger asked how Eric's division was handling the pay raise. Eric indicated that is what the committees are in the process of developing. Norman Swazo said that the College of Liberal Arts will hold a meeting on Friday, March 29, 1996 from 2:30-4:00 pm in Duckering 416 to discuss the merit salary issue. Keating indicated that it was Regents' policy to spend all the money. This is systemwide money and if UAF does not spend their portion it could be reallocated to another MAU. D. Faculty Alliance meeting - D. Lynch Don's written report was attached to the agenda. Don wanted to highlight three items. 1) All systems governance groups got together in Juneau and the personal relationships were very good. The relationships within the Faculty Alliance are also excellent. 2) Don emphasized Collection 3 and the need for review and comments from faculty. 3) The third item is productivity or effectiveness indicators. If you know of any good models, please bring them to our attention. Don wants senators to consider moving the Senate meeting to Fridays for the convenience of our rural site members. Audio- conferenced courses tend to be held on Monday through Thursday. Travel arrangements would also be easier to arrange. However, it may be difficult to find a location to hold meetings on Fridays. Glenn Juday indicated that Friday afternoons are the preferred time for the Biology and Resource related seminars. Don also indicated that he would like a representative from the CRA Faculty Council added to the list of invited speakers along with the governance reports. Ron Illingworth asked about the communication with the Board of Regents. Don indicated that at the last Board of Regents' Academic and Student Affairs Subcommittee there was significant faculty input. Keating indicated that the Systemwide Academic Council meets frequently with the Faculty Alliance. At the last Academic Affairs meeting both Eric and the UAA Alliance representative were invited to talk to them on the issue of post- tenure review. There is more sensitivity to comments from the audience. However, the Board denied the motion to formalize it into a seat at every subcommittee of the Board of Regents. Eric indicated that it is more of an issue recently due to the fact that the Faculty Alliance has functioned so well. They have been able to have a representative of all system faculty presenting positions and they would like to have that person in on the deliberations. The other reason is that the Regents have increased their micro-management of the university. As they make smaller decisions affecting faculty, the Alliance increasingly wants to have a voice in the early stages of those decisions. VI Public Comments/Questions - none VII Consent Agenda The consent agenda was adopted without opposition. A. Motion to adopt meeting calendar for 1996-97, submitted by Administrative Committee MOTION PASSED ============== The UAF Faculty Senate moves to adopt the following calendar for its 1996-97 meetings: EFFECTIVE: Immediately RATIONALE: Meetings have to be scheduled and the Ballroom reserved well in advance. 1996-97 Calendar of Meetings Mgt. Date Day Time Type 65 9/23/96 Monday 1:30 p.m. audioconference 66 10/14/96 Monday 1:30 p.m. face-to-face 67 11/11/96 Monday 1:30 p.m. audioconference 68 12/9/96 Monday 1:30 p.m. face-to-face 69 2/10/97 Monday 1:30 p.m. face-to-face 70 3/10/97 Monday 1:30 p.m. audioconference 71 4/14/97 Monday 1:30 p.m. face-to-face 72 5/12/97 Monday 1:30 p.m. audioconference **All meetings will take place in the Wood Center Ballroom FALL: Orientation for New Students - Monday, September 2, 1996 Registration/Course Selection - Tuesday-Wednesday, September 3-4, 1996 First Day of Instruction - Thursday, September 5, 1996 Thanksgiving Holiday- Thursday-Friday, November 28-29, 1996 Last Day of Instruction - Friday, December 13, 1996 Final Examinations - Monday-Thursday, December 16-19, 1996 Winter Closure - December 25, 1996-January 2, 1997 SPRING: Orientation for New Students - Monday-Tuesday, January 13-14, 1997 Registration/Course Selection - Tuesday-Wednesday, January 14-15, 1997 First Day of Class - Thursday, January 16, 1997 Spring Break - Monday-Sunday, March 17-23, 1997 Last Day of Instruction - Friday, May 3, 1997 Final Examinations - Monday-Thursday, May 5-8, 1997 ******************* B. Motion to amend the Governance Coordinating Committee Procedures to delete the Library and Information Technology Users Committee, submitted by Administrative Committee MOTION PASSED ============== The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the UAF Governance Coordinating Procedures to delete the Library and Information Technology Users Committee. EFFECTIVE: Immediately RATIONALE: The current committee is inactive and not functional at this time. To delete committees from the UAF Governance Coordinating Committee requires an amendment to the Procedures. The amendment requires a two-thirds vote from each of the three governing bodies, ASUAF, Faculty Senate,. and Staff Council, and Chancellor's approval. ******************* [[ ]] = Delete ARTICLE V Committee Sect. 1 The conference committees of the UAF Governance Coordinating Committee shall include: Academic Computer Users Committee Committee on Transportation and Campus Security Intercollegiate Athletics Committee [[Library and Information Technology Users Committee]] Rural Affairs Committee UAF Grievance Council Health Issues Sect. 3 Conference Committees Charges [[E. Library and Information Technologies Users Committee The charge of the Library and Information Technologies Users Committee shall be to: 1. review Library and Media Services plans and acquisitions. 2. advise on the application of technological innovations for the Library/Media Services.]] ****************** C. Motion to suspend change in last date of late registration, submitted by Curricular Affairs MOTION PASSED ============== The UAF Faculty Senate moves to suspend for one year the change in the last day of late registration. EFFECTIVE: Immediately RATIONALE: At its Meeting #59 on November 13, 1995 the Faculty Senate approved several date changes to simplify and clarify dates for various deadlines. We have since found that moving the last day for late registration to the second Friday of instruction causes major problems with the refund policy and for the fee assessment and collection processes. A one-year delay in implementing this change will give the Accounting and Business Operations Office an opportunity to review the current policies affected by this change. ***************** D. Motion to confirm membership on Ad Hoc Committee on Unit Criteria, submitted by Administrative Committee MOTION PASSED ============== The UAF Faculty Senate moves to confirm the membership on the Ad Hoc Committee on Unit Criteria consisting of one member from each of the following committees: Curricular Affairs, Faculty Affairs; Scholarly Activities; Faculty Development, Assessment, and Improvement; and Service Committee. Madeline Schatz, Curricular Affairs Barbara Alexander, Faculty Affairs Paul Layer, Scholarly Activities Ray RaLonde, Faculty Development, Assessment, & Improvement Michele He'bert, Service Committee ****************** VIII New Business A. Nominations for President-Elect - E. Heyne Nominations were opened and Janice Reynolds nominated Michael Jennings. Nominations will remain open until the election at the April 22, 1996 Senate meeting. B. Concurrent Enrollment - The AHEAD Program - A. Tremarello An overview of the AHEAD Program was included in the agenda. Ann Tremarello indicated advantages of the program include recruitment of local high school students, early identification of students, and better advising for students. Ann was asked about the recruitment of minorities and women. Ron Illingworth asked about the definition of local. Ann indicated that local high school students mean all high school students that have access to all UAF campuses. Maynard Perkins asked which catalog these students would be able to graduate under. If they are admitted with full freshman status at UAF then they can choose that year's catalog. C. Motion to approve that high school students accepted into the concurrent enrollment (AHEAD) program will be admitted to full freshman status at UAF and the minimum high school cumulative GPA for admission will be a 2.50, submitted by Curricular Affairs. Bob Carlson spoke against the motion and did not feel that the GPA was high enough or that we needed the program. Glenn Juday spoke in favor and indicated the importance of the program is that it provides a framework for advising and interacting with the students in a much more constructive way than the haphazard method used now. We will be more successful in providing a satisfactory experience at UAF and much more likely to retain students and bring them into the full four year program. Ron Illingworth spoke in favor of the motion but proposed a change to the program administration. The administration identified now relates to the Fairbanks North Star Borough School District. He suggested that other words be added so that other rural campuses establish a similar component for oversight of the AHEAD Program at their location. Eric indicated that was not part of the motion. Ann Tremarello agreed to work with Ron on the wording. Michael Jennings spoke in favor of the motion and indicated that the Board of Regents and the Department of Education formed a joint alliance to bring a link to K-16 education. The motion passed with 2 nays. MOTION PASSED ============== The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve that high school students accepted into the concurrent enrollment (AHEAD) program will be admitted to full freshman status at UAF, and that the minimum high school cumulative grade point average for admission to the concurrent enrollment (AHEAD) program will be 2.50. EFFECTIVE: Immediately RATIONALE: The AHEAD program will provide for the formal admission to UAF for high school students enrolled in their senior year. Because the UAF admission policy requires high school graduation and/or 18 years of age as the basic admission criteria, this change provides for the admission of non-high school graduates under the age of 18 who meet the requirements for admission to the AHEAD program. This change allows these students to register earlier and to be assigned an advisor. No change is being made for high school students that are simply taking a few courses. The AHEAD program is designed for high school students who have completed three-fourths of their high school core curriculum, have exceptional general scholastic and/or specific talent abilities, and have been recommended for acceptance into the AHEAD program by both their high school and university representatives. The committee felt that the required cumulative grade point average should be above average. The current criteria for high school students to take university courses is a 2.00 GPA so a higher standard is required for acceptance into the AHEAD program. ******************* D. Motion to endorse changes to proposed Regents' Policy on Post-Tenure Evaluation - M. Jennings The Faculty Alliance would like to move forward on their recommendations for changes on the Regents' Policy on post-tenure evaluation. This motion proposes two changes. The UAF members of the Faculty Alliance felt they needed some endorsement of these proposed changes. However, the whole question of post-tenure evaluation is up for discussion. Eric indicated that the two and three year evaluations by administrators may still continue. The five year review would be peer based and would be a fuller review. This review would kick in the annual review and grounds for termination for cause. Keating indicated that the two and three year reviews are a campus regulation and are open for modification. Once the policies of the Regents are adopted, all campus rules and procedures will be looked at to make sure they are consistent with policy. An amendment to change the evaluation to six years failed. Eric spoke about his responsibility to work hard to protect faculty rights and prerogatives and to hold the line and to keep jobs as safe as possible. Don indicated that tenure was established to guarantee academic freedom and to get people to work for universities. The real threat is to academic freedom. The post- tenure evaluation system can only work if there is a firm policy guaranteeing academic freedom. Otherwise we lose a university able to create and foster new ideas. The key element in all of this is that if you do fail and fail in two subsequent post-tenure evaluations, you will be fired with cause. Keating agreed with Don that academic freedom is the issue for tenure. He also indicated that we are not anomalous nor is our Board of Regents extreme. We have tried for two years to educate the Board of Regents on the issue of tenure, starting from the initial hiring process. Keating said that he would do everything he could to make sure the academic freedom component is maintained. The debate on post-tenure review is going on nationwide. Janice Reynolds spoke in favor of the motion and suggested that we also endorse a strong academic freedom policy. Eric indicated that we are not approving post-tenure evaluation. That is what the Board of Regents will do. Faculty Alliance members want the Senate's position on this issue. This would be a place to look at modifications to proposed policy. Glenn Juday proposed endorsement of the statement with the addition of a statement on academic freedom and the consideration by the Alliance on the issue of supermajority. Norman Swazo moved to refer the motion to the Faculty Affairs Committee. The motion to refer passed. Don encouraged everyone with additional comments to bring them to the Faculty Affairs Committee meeting. He also encouraged everyone to read all of Collection 2 and 3 to see where post-tenure evaluation fits. MOTION REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ============================= The UAF Faculty Senate moves to endorse the following changes to proposed Regents' Policy on Post-Tenure Evaluation. CAPS = Additions [[ ]] = Deletions Post-Tenure Evaluation Tenured faculty members will be evaluated intensively at least every FIVE [[three]] years by peer faculty and administrators. These evaluations will be conducted in accordance with the criteria in Regents' Policy, University Regulation, and MAU rules and procedures on evaluation. MAU rules and procedures will include a process for addressing situations in which the competence and/or performance of a faculty member is deemed to be unsatisfactory. Once a faculty member receives an unsatisfactory evaluation, annual evaluations will take place until the faculty member receives a satisfactory evaluation. Unsatisfactory evaluations for three consecutive years constitute grounds for termination for cause. AN UNSATISFACTORY EVALUATION MUST BE BASED ON THE FACULTY MEMBER'S UNWILLINGNESS OR INABILITY TO FULFILL A REASONABLE AND CUSTOMARY PROFESSIONAL OBLIGATION FOR THAT POSITION. **************** E. Motion to recommend that locus of tenure in Regents' policy be defined - M. Jennings There was a discussion of whether union members should participate in the discussion. Eric then took a straw vote on which option faculty were leaning toward. Option 1 received the most votes. Keating indicated that current policy is a unit in one campus of an MAU. The draft of Collection 3 has Option 3 as the site of tenure. Don Lynch indicated that this issue came up at the Faculty Alliance and they were split over the options. Don felt we should table the motion and take it back to constituents and put it into the context of Collection 3. It is only within the total context of those documents that one can begin to see the potential issues may be. The motion to table passed with a vote of 13 yes and 5 nays. MOTION TABLED ============== The UAF Faculty Senate moves to recommend that the locus of tenure as defined in Regents' policy be [one of the following]: Option 1: Faculty will be tenured within an MAU with the University of Alaska. Option 2: Faculty will be tenured within a community college, extended college, or campus of an MAU within the University of Alaska. Option 3: 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. **************** IX Committee Reports A. CURRICULAR AFFAIRS - Dana Thomas Curricular Affairs discussed with the Justice program their proposal for an admission requirement and the philosophy behind it. There was lengthy discussion concerning the AHEAD Program that came through the Senate today. They also discussed an academic year proposal from the Distance Education & Independent Learning Center. Other issues Curricular Affairs is looking at a proposal to allow the transfer of course credit with a grade of D from other UA institutions; multiple minors; and a list of other items. B. FACULTY AFFAIRS - Barbara Alexander Faculty Affairs has met several times and the primary issue is the collections discussed today. Faculty concerns are solicited and they should take the task very seriously. Eric again urged faculty not to hesitate to comment at any stage and not wait for the final draft. C. GRADUATE CURRICULAR AFFAIRS - Robert Carlson No report was available. D. DEVELOPMENTAL STUDIES - Ron Illingworth The following report was submitted as a handout. The Faculty Senate Developmental Studies Committee has several initiatives in progress at this time. They include the following: -Renorming of the American College Testing EACT and ACT tests for UAF's Fairbanks and rural campuses. -Renorming of the American College Testing ASSET test for UAF's Fairbanks and rural campuses. - Evaluation of the American College Testing Compass program as a possible replacement for or alternative to the ASSET. The Compass could be delivered via a networked delivery system. - Evaluation of the Supplemental Instruction system for possible implementation in a VSI mode with selected courses for UAF's Fairbanks and rural campuses. - Discussion involving improving the campus climate for learning at UAF's Fairbanks and rural campuses. The above initiatives are the results of our discussions thus far. E. FACULTY APPEALS & OVERSIGHT - Diane Bischak No report was available F. FACULTY DEVELOPMENT, ASSESSMENT & IMPROVEMENT - Rich Seifert No report was available. G. LEGISLATIVE & FISCAL AFFAIRS - Michael Jennings Wendy Redman has sent out on e-mail her audioconference schedule. Mike encouraged faculty to testify on the lands bill. Glenn Juday indicated that Representative John Davies attended a meeting over the weekend and indicated that he felt the greatest risk the land bill faced was another veto. X Discussion Items A. Academic Advising Survey - G. Hedahl Gorden Hedahl brought an academic advising survey that was developed by the subcommittee of the Enrollment Strategy Board and adopted by them. The intent is to survey students this spring at advising to try to determine the satisfaction with advising. When an ACT instrument was done a couple of years, the students were very impressed by the faculty and their contact with faculty, but we were not rated highly in our advising. So the intent is to find out more information. As Chancellor Wadlow indicated one of the key impacts in terms of enrollment and enrollment management is retention. The intent of this form is to get some information on what areas students are satisfied with and where they are not. This is not targeted at all at individuals and will not identify individual faculty. It will provide some feedback for units to see the satisfaction level of advising. We will be able to discover if students feel they are getting good information and if advisors are making contact with them. Paul Layer asked about the intent to get the results of the survey back to departments and whether the survey would be on an annual basis. Gorden indicated that it would be done this spring and results gotten back to departments. Ron Illingworth asked about the scope of the survey. Gorden said that it would go to this campus and he didn't know if it would be administered throughout CRA. Wanda Martin indicated that it should be done across the board. With the short time frame the intent was to have it done immediately now by departments locally. TVC is included but Wanda wasn't sure if there was sufficient time to get it out to all the rural campuses based on other time frames they work with. Gorden indicated that it might not be done until fall for the rural campuses. Ron Illingworth would like to see the survey available for the rural campuses for their use. XI Members' Comments/Questions Dana Thomas wanted to comment briefly on something the Provost said earlier about the student outcomes assessment. A big component will be an evaluation of our Core. It is time we seriously reviewed our Core and see if it achieving what we think it should be achieving and reevaluate our goal. The campus is to present a plan to the Board of Regents on April 19th. Dana will be working with the committee that was named this past week to draft a plan. At the April 22 Senate meeting Dana hopes to bring the plan and ask for feedback. XIV Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m. Tapes of this Faculty Senate meeting are in the Governance Office, 312 Signers' Hall if anyone wishes to listen to the complete tapes. Submitted by Sheri Layral, Faculty Senate Secretary.