I The meeting was called to order by President Lynch at 1:35 p.m. A. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Bandopadhyay, S. Barnhardt, C. Barry, R. (M. Tumeo) Finney, B. Beget, J. (L. Duffy) Gavlak, R. Boone, R. Kelley, J. Braddock, J. RaLonde, R Cooper, B. Ruess, D. Craven, J. Reynolds, J. Creed, J. Wade, C. Curda, L. Fast, P. OTHERS PRESENT Lynch, D. Ducharme Maginnis, T. Goering, J. McBeath, G. Hayes, J. McFadden, T. Illingworth, R. McLean-Nelson, D. Jennings, M. Mortensen, B. Keating, J. Nance, K. Lando, C. Nielsen, H. Layral, S. Perkins, M. Lister, R. Pippenger, M. Ruppert, J. Robinson, T. Thomas, D. Schatz, M. Schweitzer, P. Seifert, R. Spell, D. Swazo, N. Walworth, J. Weber, J. NON-VOTING MEMBERS PRESENT: NON-VOTING MEMBERS ABSENT: Hedahl, G. - Dean, CLA Wheeler, C. - President, ASUAF Tremarello, A - Registrar Pierce, R. - President, UAFSC Alexander, V. - Dean, SFOS 1 graduate student B. The minutes to Meeting #65 (September 23, 1996) were amended to include sexual orientation as the life style that Anchorage proposal wants specifically named as part of the protection categories in Board policy. The minutes were then approved. C. The agenda was approved with the addition of New Business Item B.-Resolution to Confirm the Chemistry Peer Review Unit and Item C.-Motion to change the Student-Initiated Withdrawal Policy and eliminate the no basis (NB) grade at UAF. II Status of Chancellor's Office Actions A. Motions approved: B. Motions pending: 1. Motion to approve the AAS in Apprenticeship Technology. (Approved 10/21/95) III Guest Speakers - David Guttenberg, candidate for Senate District ³O² which is the west side of Fairbanks. He has lived in the area for 27 years. Guttenberg recognizes that the University is the heart of this senate district. He has been involved with the university for most of that time either through taking classes and through the rest of his family. Guttenberg has been going to Juneau for about 10 years as student of the legislative process in a variety of capacities. He is known throughout the state as a strong advocate for the state outside of Anchorage. Friends say that 50 percent of the people live in Anchorage and he responds that that means 50 percent live outside of Anchorage. What happens after November 5 is important in the organization and makeup of the legislature. We canıt afford a Senate dominate by Anchorage. Fairbanks has not been able to defend itself or prevail in a variety of issues. Currently a new dorm is being build at UAA, when ours are falling apart. This campus is one of the largest parts of this community and it needs to be defended, maintained, and built. Besides the physical side of the campus what make the campus is its faculty, staff and students. Gary Wilken, candidate for Senate District ³O². He has been a resident of Fairbanks for 40 years and has four children that have gone through the Fairbanks School District. Two are seniors at UAF, one is a Freshman at the University of Colorado and one is at West Valley High School. His wife works at the university. He has had a long association with this school. In interior Alaska there are five industries that keep us here: oil field development, military, mining, tourism, and UAF. Wilkens will be very concerned with those five and a couple that are emerging. He will be concerned particularly about UAF. There is not one person in the legislature, except the governor, that has the ability to do the best for UAF. Wilkens accepts that as a responsibility and a challenge. What needs to be done in the legislature for UAF falls into three categories. The first is repair, the second is enhance our university, and the third is to protect. Someone in the legislature has to remember that UAF is the flagship of the university system. Someone has to remind them that we are UAF and also UA statewide. He is committed to this place because it is not only an economic engine, but it also provides Fairbanks people a tremendous asset. It is part of our economic and social fabric. VI Comments from Provost, Jack Keating - The Board of Regents meeting was held in Fairbanks two weeks ago and the main issue was talks about the budget especially the capital budget. There was some confusion on the way the budget would be presented to the legislature in a six year plan as opposed to the 56 item wish list of $156 million. It is clear that the governor has reiterated that he will just give $7 million to systemwide this coming year. The budget request that the Board of Regents did approve was for about $56 million; $25 of which the first priority is deferred maintenance and of which UAF would receive the lions share. In future meetings the word productivity will be more clearly articulated. Last Friday the SAC met in Anchorage with the President where they looked at a variety of surveys and talked about issues related to the appropriate staffing of the various campuses of the university. The provost has directed the deans and directors to begin looking at their numbers and come up with a variety of empirical measures of quality rather than simply student credit hours generated on which premise most of the surveys reviewed are based. The legislature is looking for some reallocation. Our best chance to maintain during these difficult times is to show the quality of this campus. It is a difficult task and we will be asking all the faculty to cooperate with the deans and directors as we are trying to have a better articulation of the quality not only of our classroom instruction but especially of our research and service to the state. We have been very ineffective or uneven in presenting the picture of our service to the state in areas where we really dominate. It has been started in the Provost Council and we have a variety of initiatives coming out of the Outreach Working Group of which Kara Nance is a member. We have come up with some ways departments can focus their efforts on service and be very much in line with their particular mission. We are looking at unit types of performances as opposed to individual performances. We have to be sharper in the way we articulate it and focus it in way people can understand it. This will be an ongoing effort this semester so that we will have our message clear by the time the legislature meets in session at the beginning of next year. The question the provost asked the deans and directors was how do we come up with some benchmarks and begin to measure progress on things like retention or productivity vis-à-vis grants submitted not necessarily funded. This is a serious effort of UAF pulling together to show that we are the flagship of the university in the state and that we just donıt measure quality by only student credit hours. Distance delivery is a key in the new $100,000 MAPCO grant. It includes electric use in the classroom and way to bring classrooms around the state more effectively. John Morackıs committee will be distributing an RFP for that grant. We did receive a sizable amount of money from the Natural Resources Fund to devote to smart classroom. We will be putting in 3-4 smart classroom which means they will be electronically sophisticated. Going along with that is a theme that the Senate and Alliance is urging and that is faculty development on the use of these new and innovative tools. There is a million dollars that the president removed from the three campuses budgets proportionately. UAFıs proportion was about $500,000 and there is a competition systemwide. What the focus is on initiative in undergraduate education. The emphasis will be on a distance delivery component or cross-campus. These should be new initiatives that speak to undergraduate education, they should be things we need to do but need money to do, and they should be things that we really can deliver. It is up to us to put forward initiatives that will win back a lions share of our budget that is on the table. Deans and directors have President Komisarıs letter on this. We are trying to put together a package coming out of the campus that we will list our priorities and then pursue it from there. V Governance Reports A. ASUAF - C. Wheeler No report was given. B. Staff Council - R. Pierce Ron was unable to attend the meeting, but sent in comments which were read by Don Lynch. Staff Council is working toward the establishment of staff training and development particularly in the areas of supervisory training. Staff Council has prepared a recognition program and has submitted it to the Chancellor. They are expecting her review comments and hope to have a formal program in place by the first of the year. The Job Evaluation Process is behind schedule and results are anticipate sometime in November. Unofficial comments tell us that UAF position evaluations will result in no change in the classification of positions. Ron thanked the faculty for their support of the UAF picnic and will be calling upon faculty again next year. On October 16th there will be a special meeting of Staff Council to hear the current health benefit plan outline. Staff Council has been requested to participate in drafting a new health program for the University system. The paid time off policy will be reviewed this year and Staff Council will participate in that review. There is the potential that annual leave and sick leave will be combined into a paid time off program. Some of you have met the Staff Council President-Elect, Pam Sowell. Her son was involved in a serious automobile accident and sustained a head injury that is very serious and life threatening. He is unconscious and in a hospital out of state. C. President's Comments - D. Lynch Don distributed his report on the Board of Regents meeting and distributed the following report earlier. The Faculty Alliance will be meeting in Anchorage on October 17 and then they will have a meeting with the President on October 18. Issues of educational effectiveness measurement are significant and we prefer to have those handled initially through faculty development, assessment and improvement. Don has appointed himself, John Craven, Mike Jennings, and Dave Spell as an ad hoc committee to revise the bylaws. Don asked for a volunteer for the Instructional Working Group. In the past it has been the chair of Curricular Affairs. Gorden Hedahl briefly described what the group does. The Provost indicated that this was the administrative equivalent to Curricular Affairs. Ann Tremarello indicated that there were three people on the Instructional Working Group that are also on Curricular Affairs, Wanda Martin, Ann, and Paul Reichardt. It was felt that someone from the faculty needed to be a member of that committee. Kara Nance volunteered and will keep Curricular Affairs and the Senate appraised on activities of the Instructional Working Group. President's Report for Senate Meeting Oct. 14, 1996 Welcome to our second meeting of this academic year. I trust you all recognize Columbus Day and realize that he drew his inspiration from the voyages of St. Brendan, but is not related to St. Columbanus. I wish to extend our warmest welcome to the senators from our outlying Campuses and ask them to introduce themselves. We shall have a break during this meeting. I hope your committee members will then get together and meet each other face to face. There are a few minor matters I would like to request. Please, please, will each committee chair keep minutes of each meeting with the names of those present and those absent. The minutes can be short. Please give one copy to Sheri and keep the other for use in writing your final report at the end of the year. Please be sure that each committee is always represented at the Administrative Committee meetings. If the chair is unable to come, then delegate someone else to do so. This coming Thursday the Faculty Alliance meets in Anchorage. Your delegates are myself, John Craven, and Mike Jennings. The key issue the Alliance wants us all to consider is faculty development as it relates to distance delivery. The Alliance meets with President Komisar this coming Friday, and who knows, we might get some good news. The Provost has announced a competition for some one million dollars the President has set aside for innovative educational programs particularly those involving statewide distance delivery. Proposals are due at the President's office on October 30 and should be funneled through your Dean to the Provost. Educational Effectiveness is moving along with Campus wide and college figures of merit or effectiveness being developed. Departmental measurement criteria are in the offing. Once a baseline is established the University then on an annual basis will be able to statistically demonstrate increases or decreases in productivity. We are also supposed to acquire some "smart" classrooms. The Retirement Incentive Lists are out. Be sure to check with your dean if you think you should be on the list but are not. D. President-Elect's Comments - J. Craven John submitted the following comments as a handout and highlighted some of the points. 1. The president's earlier report on the September 25-27, 1996, Board of Regents meeting is quite extensive. If you have not done so, I urge you to read it. 2. I was on travel and could not attend the Alliance of Faculty Senates meeting on September 20th. Again, the president's report is very detailed, and you should be familiar with the issues being discussed by faculty governance at the three MAUs. Copies can be obtained from the UAF Governance Office. 3. We are rapidly approaching midterm in this semester and the UAF Governance Coordinating Committee still has not met. This committee oversees the work of several noteworthy UAF committees. Is governance working in this committee? If you are unfamiliar with the place this committee occupies in governance, I urge you open your 1996-97 UAF Faculty Senate Directory and Handbook to the diagram on the 7th page and the text on the 4th to the last page. Independently, I was approached by a faculty member last week asking that, as the Coordinating Committee was basically nonfunctional, the Academic Computer Users Committee be removed from the Coordinating Committee and given to the Faculty Senate. While such a transfer is not that simple, it represents a timely comments on the perceived functioning of the Coordinating Committee. These issues should be raised with the Chancellor. 4. I wish to thank Sheri and Kathy in the Governance Office for completing the new Governance Home Page on the infamous World Wide Web. Please exercise the new electronic communications marvel and give us your advice on things that work, could work better and/or don't work at all for you. There are two versions: the full-blown Netscape edition and a non-graphics version with only text. Handouts are provided with all the relevant details. I pledge two dozen of my finest home-made chocolate-chip cookies at the next meeting of the Faculty Senate to the person or persons Sheri and Kathy name as making the greatest contribution to improving the home page. 5. Dana Thomas, the Chancellor's special assistant, presented another detailed report to the UAF Faculty Senate's Administrative Committee on October 4th. The actions of his office are aimed at making the university "student friendly" through the reduction and/or elimination of administrative and academic procedures thought to be redundant or unnecessary. It is at such times of dramatic change that the senate is faced directly with the true administrative commitment to shared governance: whether it is better to seek the advice and recommendation of the Faculty Senate over several months, or press on by administrative prerogative and get the job done now. The latter appears favored at the present, and I find in the Administrative Committee no wish to raise the issue. However, I ask the Chancellor and Provost to keep the Faculty Senate informed of the actions related to academic issues, such as the new policy on advising for juniors and seniors and on priorities in registration. I suspect that the reticence of the senate to address this issue is due in no small part to the very high regard in which we hold Dana Thomas, knowing that few amongst us posses his broad knowledge of the inner working of UAF and that few "stones" will remain unturned in the search for well-designed policies. It is also true that the committee most overworked within this senate is the Curricular Affairs Committee, to which such issues would have been assigned. But, aside from such valid arguments (a.k.a., rationalizations), there still remains the underlying issue of the concept of shared governance and the faculties supposed prerogative with regard to academic issues. There is an irretrievable loss with each such event, not soon recovered in the memory of faculty, who generally remain far longer than administrators, who then, in their turn, inherit the legacies of the past, much like Chancellor Wadlow has inherited the legacy of deferred maintenance. The committee wishes to thank Dana Thomas for the time spend in the lengthy discussions at the meeting of the Administrative Committee. It is my sense that members of the committee, the provost and Dana all learned something new and unexpected during the discussions, and that should help Dana in completing his work. 6. A motion was brought forward by the Curricular Affairs Committee to the Administrative Committee regarding the student- initiated withdrawal policy and elimination of the NB grade. This motion lead to a second lengthy discussion resulting the return of the motion to the committee with several good recommendations for additional consideration. The Developmental Studies Committee is also making contributions to this discussion. The provost's useful contribution is also acknowledge, and, again, I think the long discussion may have helped to shape a more equitable solution. 7. It has been pointed out by the provost that the senate did not provide for the timely turnover of non-senate members when we rewrote bylaws for the Graduate School Advisory Committee. We are checking to see if this is true for other permanent committees as well and will then bring suggested revisions to the senate. 8. You will recall that the Faculty Senate is asked at its last meeting of the spring semester to certify the list of students for graduation. It is stated that this is a prerogative of the faculty. At the last Board of Regent's meeting President Komisar asked the board to certify the list of graduates for the last three semesters (summer, fall and spring), but there was nothing said about any faculty recommendation. The chancellor has asked the provost to inquire if this could be altered. It is not my intention to keep harping on the subject of "governance, real or an illusion," but it seem clear that the real part is not very well defined, certainly to my science-oriented brain that is used to working in the complex plane of real and imaginary quantities. This may make a fine starting point for a conversation with President Komisar at our Alliance retreat in Anchorage this Friday. 9. The latest meeting of the UA Systems Governance Council was held on October 2 1996. (Again, see the senate's handbook for limited information). Several interesting bits: We received the first public copies of the RIP list, but that is now old news. The legislative survey forms have been sent out to the candidates and are due back on the 15th of this month. I am trying to find out if we can get a quick summary. Wendy Redman gave a long summary of upcoming legislative activities. The Legislative and Fiscal Affairs Committee chair needs to attend these meeting and listening to her presentations. It looks like seat belts will be needed again this year during the ups-and-downs of the legislative session. The geographic salary differential is not supported by data. The pension program (not retirement) is apparently not required for the social security offset, so it looks as if there is some question about it being retained. The best time to revise the PERS and TRS packages for new employees is as part of the present RIP. UA supports some changes as savings are needed. The legislature is also interested. The transfer of land grant money to UA from the Dept. of Revenue (?) might happen. 10. My comments to the Administrative Committee at its meeting of October 4, 1996, are reproduced here. I seek constructive suggestions for improvements. 10.1. Operation of the Administrative Committee I expect that many of you will agree with me when I state my feeling that the previous meeting of the Administrative Committee went on much longer than needed. This was due in some part to the lengthy discussions not necessarily relevant to the task of moving committee motions forward. My understanding of the committee's tasks include the following: Receive reports from the president of the Senate and from the Provost with regard to current issues of importance. Accept the motions of the other committees or from within the Administration Committee; Make certain that the motions are ready for senate action, and if not, refer them back for further work and/or direct them to other relevant committees that may not have considered the motions; Move the motions to the Faculty Senate's agenda; Review reports of all committee work in progress; and Discuss other issues that may or should lead to later committee and senate actions. I request that you consider this list and provided your comments at the meeting. To further increase the efficiency of the Administrative Committee, we will return to the use of Robert's Rules of Order, as required by the Bylaws of the Faculty Senate. While it is not the intent of the chair to maintain rigid enforcement of the rules, we are all sufficiently busy that the entrance of extraneous material into the meetings is to be avoided. 10.2. Attendance at Meeting of the Administration Committee The Administrative Committee is made up of the chairs of all committees of the Faculty Senate. Each member of this committee is obligated to attend and participate in the work of the Administrative Committee, just as the members of your committees are expected to contribute to the work of your committees. The collective experience of the committees chairs is invaluable in leading the work of the Faculty Senate. The committee can not formally meet and create an agenda for the next meeting of the Faculty Senate in the absence of a quorum. 10.3. Draft Statement of Committee Obligations with Regard to Communications by the Public (faculty, staff, students and administration at UAF, UAA and UAS, and the general public) Each meeting is a public meeting that must provide time for communications by the public. It is recommended that any such individual first prepare a written summary of the communication and that it be presented to the chair prior to publication of the agenda for the next meeting. The person submitting the communication should then be encouraged to attend the meeting to provide additional information as requested by the committee. However, it is also possible that members of the public may wish to agenda for the next meeting. The person submitting the communication should then be encouraged to attend the meeting to provide additional information as requested by the committee. However, it is also possible that members of the public may wish to attend a meeting and provide information without the earlier submission. In this case, it is recommended that the committee chair allow time for a brief discussion to establish the subject of the communication. The chair can then rule if the committee has time within its published agenda to discuss the communication at that meeting, or if it must be scheduled for discussion at a later meeting. It is recommended that this decision be made early in the meeting as a courtesy to the individual. These communications are at the heart of the senate's rational for existing, and each committee chair is held responsible for making certain that these communications are given a respectful hearing. If the chair rules that the subject should be directed to another committee, the chair can either receive and forward the material to the proper committee (or the Administrative Committee) or inform the individual of the name of the chair of the relevant committee. 10.4. Draft Statements Defining the Scope of a Committee's Work: Strictly by statements in the Bylaws Statements in the Bylaws provide a focus, and a committee must address only subjects reasonably related to its main purpose. All other communication to the committee are to be forwarded to the appropriate committee or the Administration Committee. Statements in the Bylaws provide a focus, but a committee can address any subject it wishes. However, it will eventually lead to motions before the Administration Committee, and can then get rerouted to the appropriate committee. However, the committee must be careful to not let this interfere with its primary obligations. VI Public Comments/Questions - Ruth Olsen, Intramural & Recreation Coordinator with the SRC spoke about the wellness programs ongoing at the SRC. The SRC extended their hours and are open earlier in the morning. She encouraged participation by faculty, staff and students. VII New Business A. Motion to amend the Associate of Arts requirements, submitted by Curricular Affairs MOTION PASSED ============== The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the Associate of Arts Requirements in the following way: To allow three semester-length courses (9 credits) in American Sign Language taken at the university level to be substituted for one of the required humanities and social science core courses, and the three-credit humanities or social science elective. Effective: Fall 1996 Rationale: During the 1995-96 year, the Faculty Senate approved the use of three semester-length courses (9 credits) in American Sign Language to substitute for two courses in the Perspectives on the Human Condition section of the baccalaureate core curriculum. At the time this was presented and approved, no consideration was given to the associate of arts degree requirements. The humanities and social science requirements for the associate of arts degree are identical to the baccalaureate core ³Perspectives on the Human Condition² area with the exception that 3 credits of humanities or social science electives are required instead of Phil. 3232X/PS 300X. This motion meets the intent of the Faculty Senate to facilitate the movement of associate of arts students into baccalaureate degree programs. **************** B. Resolution to confirm the Chemistry and Biochemistry Department Peer Review Committee An amendment was offered to add Larry Duffy to the Peer Review Committee. There was some discussion as to the eligibility of department chairs to sit on the Peer Review Committee. The amendment failed. The original resolution passed unanimously. RESOLUTION PASSED ================== BE IT RESOLVED, That the UAF Faculty Senate moves to confirm the Chemistry and Biochemistry Department Peer Review Committee for the 1996-97 academic year as indicated below: Don Button, Marine Science & Biochemistry Tom Clausen, Chemistry/Biochemistry John French, Fisheries & Biochemistry Dan Jaffe, Chemistry/Biochemistry Gerry Plumley, Marine Science Glen Shaw, Geophysics Richard Stolzberg, Chemistry/Biochemistry EFFECTIVE: Immediately RATIONALE: According to UAF Regulations, units with less than seven tenured faculty must have their Unit Peer Review committees augmented with additional appropriate faculty. Presently the Chemistry Department has six tenured faculty, one of whom is serving on the University-wide Promotion and Tenure Committee. Thus, Chemistry has only five faculty eligible for serving on the Unit Peer Review Committee. ****************** C. Motion on withdrawal policy & NB grade, submitted by Curricular Affairs Maynard presented a motion on the withdrawal policy and no basis grade that Curricular Affairs moved to bring directly to the floor of the Senate. Don asked for a division of the question. Dana Thomas stated he wrote the original proposal that went to Curricular Affairs. He heard many stories of misuse of the NB grade and also a real need to change the withdrawal policy. The two issues are tied together. Dana spoke against splitting them. The idea is that if we move the withdrawal date back to the six week period, then if students have done nothing and are earning an NB grade faculty would withdrawal them and an NB would become unnecessary. Kara Nance expressed concern about the correspondence course timelines. John Creed asked how this change would affect the universityıs commitment to the community college mission. Dana said that he did consider it and felt that it was part of his motivation for debate. He had received numerous e-mail messages saying they wanted to keep the NB grade, but many included an explanation which was a violation of the NB grade. Maynard indicated that the committee discussed the motion extensively and received information from the Developmental Studies Committee and they were split on the motion. Ruth Lister is very concerned about the elimination of the NB grade by the Faculty Senate. UAF has an open admission and we have an obligation to address community needs. The original NB grade passed by the Senate was based on insufficient student progress or attendance for evaluation. That is how TVC is using it. Whether or not every single faculty uses it well or any other grade well is an issue of training. Many of TVCıs students do not succeed in their first semester but if they feel they have had a good experience at UAF, they will come back. Over half of the students are community based non-degree seeking students who take interest courses or course to increase their job skills. The NB grade is a critical tool for student retention. Ron Illingworth, co-chair, Developmental Studies Committee distributed a resolution that was passed by the committee last Friday which spoke to the issue of the NB grade. The committee supported the proposal for the change in the withdrawal date. They do not support the elimination of the NB grade. Ron also chairs the College of Rural Alaska Faculty Council and they unanimously support the retention of the NB grade. He also provided information about how whether other colleges have a similar grade. Most community colleges have something similar and the 4 year and graduate schools donıt use that type of grade. This concept falls into the community college mission area. The NB grade is a faculty option to use and is not required. Dave Spell called for a point of order and asked for a vote to divide the question. A vote was taken to divide the question and 15 voted yes and 8 voted no. Don asked if there was anyone from the rural sites or TVC that is in favor of elimination of the NB grade. No won responded. Don also asked if there was any objection to moving the withdrawal date to the sixth week. Again there was no objection. Don asked for a new motion from the committee. Mark asked if the Administrative Committee sent this motion back to the Curricular Affairs Committee. When Don indicated that was correct, Mark moved to table the issue until the next Faculty Senate meeting. The motion to table passed with a vote of 13 yes and 12 no. ******************* VIII Committee Reports A. Curricular Affairs - Maynard Perkins September 27, 1996 Meeting Minutes Established quorum: Carol Barnhardt, Joan Braddock, John Creed, Gayle Gregory, Wanda Martin, Jerry McBeath, Terry McFadden, Maynard Perkins, Paul Reichardt, Ann Tremarello, Jane Weber. -Elected Wanda Martin and Ann Tremarello to represent CAC at the Provostıs Instructional Working Group. -Had no action on BOR policy concerning students with more than 175 credits. Based on the news that the BOR recognized that they had made an error. -Acted on and submitted a motion to the Admin. Comm. for Senate action concerning withdrawal dates and faculty initiated withdrawal and the elimination of the NB grade. -Submitted a motion to adjust the AA degree requirements to keep them in line with the BA degree requirements concerning American Sign Language. -Limitations on enrollment as originally proposed by the Justice program was discussed and Gerald McBeath recommended that Gary Copus rethink the proposal and attempt to bring it in line with the methodology used by the School of Education. The committee agreed. Maynard Perkins will so notify Gary Copus. -Information items: 500 level course compression policy; advisors signature requirements. 10/11/96 Curricular Affairs Committee meeting minutes 1. Quorum established: Maynard Perkins, Carol Barnhardt, Joan Braddock, John Creed, Gayle Gregory, Wanda Martin, Jerry McBeath, Terry McFadden, Paul Reichardt, Ann Tremarello, Jane Weber, Don Lynch. 2. The Provost has an Instructional Working group and is requesting a Senate faculty representative. In the past this has been the chair of the Curricular Affairs Committee. The chair's schedule does not allow attendance to all of the meetings. The Curricular Affairs committee requests the Senate to select a faculty representative to attend the meetings. Wednesdays 9:00-11:00, October 2, 23, November 27; Wednesday 2:00-4:00 December 18. 3. The CA committee discussed the Faculty initiated withdrawal/No Basis grade motion that was sent to the Administrative Committee (AC) and returned to the CA for further consideration based upon input from the Developmental Committee. The CA moved to bring the motion directly to the Senate meeting floor at the October 14, meeting. MOTION ======= The UAF Faculty Senate moves to change the Student-Initiated Withdrawal Policy that applies to all Fairbanks campus courses (i.e., all UAF courses except those given by the rural campuses or the Center for Distance Education); and change the no basis (NB) grade to the following: The last day for student-initiated withdrawal for all Fairbanks campus students shall be the sixth Friday of the semester. Class roll correction forms completed by faculty during the sixth week of class (rural campuses will follow their own time line) will also serve as faculty initiated withdrawal forms for students not attending or participating in that course. For courses with duration other than the normal fall or spring semester the time period will be prorated according to the length of the course. For non-semester based correspondence students a course length of one year will be used. The no basis (NB) grade will be eliminated from grades given at UAF. EFFECTIVE: Fall 1997 RATIONALE: One major factor in the senate vote that created the relatively short time period for student initiated withdrawals was a belief that students were shopping for credits. The elimination of the tuition cap and implementation of new late add fees have changed the situation. Each semester the faculty is requested by the registrar to correct class rolls but often see no change in the status of nonparticipating students in subsequent class rolls. Although our registrar may check student initiated withdrawal records, or change to audit requests, and may even attempt to contact these students, in many cases no change occurs in the student's status. With the faculty being able to withdraw students who are not attending class or who have not submitted work by the end of the sixth week, there is no longer a need for the NB grade. Together these changes should reduce student resentment for missing a deadline, reduce the number of negative interactions between students, faculty, and administrators, and reduce the abuse of NB grades. 4 The committee discussed the senates position concerning course compression policy. The committee reaffirmed the Senates #59 meeting dated November 13, 1995 motion to apply to all courses including 500 level courses. This discussion was held in response to Provost Keating's request for clarification. 5 Discussed the Chancellor's signing off on the following: Students that have completed at least 30 credit hours at UAF are no longer required to get an advisor's signature prior to telephone registration. All students are encouraged to discuss course selection with their advisor. No action taken or recommended. Adjourned 12:00 ***************** B. Faculty Affairs - Dave Spell Dave Spell indicated that the charge of Faculty Affairs is to address topics of workload, appointment, termination, promotion/tenure, sabbatical leave, and academic freedom. Within that broad purview they will be looking at ethical issues, especially in the context of academic freedom. C. Graduate Curricular Affairs - Mark Tumeo A report was attached to the agenda. Comments on the issue of project vs. thesis should be sent to any committee member. They will be developing guidelines on what is a thesis project vs what a project for a masterıs degree. D. Scholarly Activities - The committee has scheduled their first meeting October 16, 1996. E. CNCSHDR - Rudy Krejci No report was available. F. Developmental Studies - Ron Illingworth A report was attached to the agenda. G. Faculty Appeals & Oversight - Diane Bischak No report was available. The Committee will be meeting October 17. H. Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement - Rich Seifert A report was attached to the agenda. I. Graduate School Advisory Committee - Peggy Schumaker No report was available. The Committeeıs next meeting is scheduled for October 25. J. Legislative & Fiscal Affairs - Michael Jennings Mike indicated that he had no report from his committee. The committee has been responsible for inviting candidates to the Senate meetings. K. Service Committee - Kara Nance The Outreach Working Group brought up an item on developing service to the Provost Council for discussion. Some departments are voluntarily going to implement it as part of their annual evaluation on a trial basis to see how it works. L. University-Wide Promotion/Tenure - John Keller No report was available. IX Discussion Items - none X Members' Comments/Questions A. James Walworth commented that the Fairbanks and Anchorage campuses operated under a different schedule of class time and it is an impediment to distance delivery. It was pointed out that the UAF campuses operate with different class times. B. Dave Spell indicated that he was a past chair of the Scholarly Activities Committee and has been tasked by the Administrative Committee to work with that committee to regenerate it or see whether it belongs in some other area. Dave is inviting comments from Senate members. Dave also indicated that he was a member of the Academic Computer Users Committee under the General Assembly and when the Senate was formed he tried to get it moved into the Senate. Staff and students felt that they had input into the computer too, so it was kept in the Governance council. C. Norm Swazo wanted to comment on the Provostıs comments on effectiveness and measurement of productivity. He indicated that circulated in his department was a statement that said all new faculty would be required to have submitted proposals for extramural funding. If that is to occur does it take into account workload distribution--teaching, research, and so on. Keating indicated that it did come from the Provostıs Office at the request of the Chancellor for him to indicate what kind of measures and benchmarks could we have for productivity. For example, a 0.2% increase in retention rate over three years would bring us up over the national average of freshmen and sophomores. There were ten of those. One of them was we have no benchmarks for how first year faculty are submitting grant proposals. The first year he calls for benchmarks, the second year a 33% increase and 33% each year after that. Those are his targets for productivity submitted to the Chancellor. These are still in discussion with the Chancellor as a way of looking for productive measures. XI Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 3:45 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.