I The meeting was called to order by President Craven at 1:30 p.m. A. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Bandopadhyay, S. Allen, J. Barnhardt, C. Barry, R. Bruder, J. Boone, R. Cooper, B. Conti, E. Corti, L. Finney, B. Craven, J. Kramer, D. Curda, L. Porter, D. Fitts, A. Ruess, D. French, J. Yarie, J. Gatterdam, R. Gavlak, R. OTHERS PRESENT: Johnson, T. Ducharme, J. Maginnis, T. Husby, F. McBeath, G. Layral, S. Mortensen, B. Lynch, D. Nance, K. Redman, W. Nielsen, H. Wadlow, J. Perkins, M. Robinson, T. Schatz, M. Walen, M. Weber, J. Wilson, B. NON-VOTING MEMBERS PRESENT: NON-VOTING MEMBERS ABSENT: Nuss, S. - President, ASUAF Long, P. - President, UAFSC Eichholz, M. - Graduate Student Org. Alexander, V. - Dean, SFOS Hedahl, G. - Dean, CLA Tremarello, A - University Registrar B. The minutes to Meeting #72 (May 12, 1997) were approved as distributed via e-mail. C. The agenda was approved as distributed via e-mail. John reminded the Senate members about using the audio microphones when they wish to speak. He also reminded Senate members to send their alternate if they are unable to attend. II Status of Chancellor's Office Actions A. Motions approved: 1. Motion to amend Section 3, (Article V: Committees, Standing) of the Bylaws. 2. Motion to establish a Statement of Professional Ethics. 3. Motion to amend the Transfer of Credit policy. 4. Motion to amend Section 3, (Article V: Committees, Permanent) of the Bylaws. B. Motions pending: none III A. Comments from Chancellor Wadlow - Chancellor Wadlow spoke on the following issues: 1. Enrollment--Our enrollment is up, it has grown from Friday's report and today's report. The two areas where we see the biggest increase in transfer student and first time graduate student. Especially important to us at this time is the first time freshman student. We have done a lot of things differently this year and will continue to do things differently. Our next big emphasis will be to retain the students we recruited. We have a very good retention rate between the freshman and sophomore year, it is better than most schools of our type. We need to keep that record and even improve it. What we have to work on is our graduation rate. We also know from studies and our own experience that transfer students have a higher graduation rate than other students. With that particular category growing it looks very promising. Something that we have to make up for is that last year we had the biggest graduation class in the history of the institution. Those students left so they need to be replaced. 2. Shuttle service--The revised schedule is based on input from people. The new schedule is out and the buses will be running from 7:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Mondays through Fridays. The West Ridge Express will take place every seven minutes. It will stop at Wood Center, Natural Science Facility, Arctic Health, and again at Wood Center. The parking lot shuttle express will go every 12 minutes and will go from the Nenana lot to Eielson and Bunnell, from the Taku lot to Wood Center and back to Taku and also to Bunnell for drop off only. Based on the input and cries of protest about changes, this is the revision and yet it is a revision that still will give us some savings. We will continue to monitor the shuttle service and receive ideas for different approaches. Always keep in mind that there have to be some dollars that are saved. 3. Change in academic calendar for spring 1998--When the Regents acted after months of discussion on how UA would observe Alaska Civil Rights Day they decided that classes would not be held but the University would continue to be in operation. They also specified in their action that there would be an official replacement day. We did not do that in our calendar last year. Since our calendar is prepared well in advance we did not designate a replacement day. We went to the Board on two different occasions and asked for a waiver or a delay in designating an official replacement day on the grounds that we had enough contact hours at UAF to warrant the schedule just the way it had been put together. That did not carry any weight. So we need to designate an official replacement date. This date will be Saturday, February 7th. This schedules the replacement day prior to the low grade report for freshmen are due. I could not agree with the recommendation made by the Governance Coordinating Committee to start the semester a day early. The reason was that we had already published widely the official catalog with the start date for the semester. People make plans according to the official publication. If there is a conflict on the replacement day the instructor in consultation with the appropriate dean can make alternate arrangements. 4. This is the last year of implementation of the 3 year plan for program assessment where we were to provide a certain level of savings from a number of actions. Some of the major structural or organizational changes that are underway in different stages right now are the final stages of consolidation into one college--the new College of Natural Resource, Development and Management. Acting Dean, Fred Husby, will have meetings with a college council next week. The conversations for the reconfiguration of ACE and CRA are underway and will be completed within the next month or two. At the end of which we will begin a national search for a director of ACE. Professor Hollis Hall is retiring at the end of the semester. The last major effort underway is the consolidation of the research business offices with a target date of July 1, 1998. 5, At the forum the other day the Chancellor referred to the three committees that have been established to look at cost savings for the entire university. The one chaired by Chancellor Wadlow is charged with looking at the redesign of the system office and administrative savings at the campuses. That committee has begun its work and will give a first report to the Board of Regents Planning Committee on Thursday, September 25th. The committee on the rural sites is meeting regularly and will have a final report to the Board in November. The third committee chaired by Chancellor Gorsuch which is on the allocation model for the whole university will be meeting soon. UAF members on the committee are John Craven and Paul Reichardt. In parallel, Jack Keating and the other two provosts are working on recommendations on instructional equipment needs for the university and in particular for distance. delivery. 6. Technology fee--A student/faculty/staff/administrative committee met this summer and made recommendations for some expenditures that could be put into place by the time students returned this fall. Basically their recommendations which were implemented were both for equipment and for extended hours and services in the existing technology labs. Jerry McBeath indicated that most people get information from sources other than the catalog and asked if serious consideration was given to the educationally disruptive effects of scheduling the make up day on Saturday as compared to the early start date or the all campus day. Wadlow indicated that she had given consideration to both and that the students rose up in horror at the thought of eliminating All Campus Day. Hans Nielsen asked about the retirement replacements. He understood that most of the replacements were in place already. Wadlow indicated that she had received a report from the Provost on the status of the replacements and that steps or actions for the replacements are mostly in place. For example, this week CSEM will be discussing the searches and steps to be taken for a number of positions. John French said he thought that the change in the make up date directly affects hours and wages and as such represents a mandatory subject of bargaining with respect to the union. Tom Robinson asked if the technology fee was applied uniformly in Fairbanks. Wadlow indicated that it was applied only to students enrolled on a main campus and is not applicable to any student enrolled at TVC or the remote sites. The action of the Board of Regents included a statement that said if the technology fee were to be applied to the extended sites it would need to be request by them. At this point no extended sites have requested the fee. Barbara Wilson commented that information from Jim Stricks indicates that the cross-regional enrollment is at an all time high. She also understood that the native student enrollment was at an all time low and what can we do to boost that enrollment. Wadlow indicated that she had not seen the breakdown of enrollment which would give those figures and did not expect them until next week. If we are down the Chancellor will be asking units which traditionally enroll large numbers of native students about techniques that might be used in recruiting to increase our enrollment. B. Guest Speaker - Wendy Redman, Vice President for University Relations. The last legislative session was clearly painful, not just for UA but for the whole state. We have a legislature who believes they have a mandate to cut the budget. This is the third year of their five year plan. This year is our $50 million cut year. If you look at the last election the most ardent budget cutter was either elected or reelected. With that kind of overwhelming support they feel quite confident that the public wants them to cut the budget. There were no hearings last year. The president was asked to give a 15 minute presentation in both the House and the Senate. They did not want to hear from the Chancellors. They had a plan and gave their plan for budget cuts to their subcommittee chairs. We did have an opportunity at the subcommittee hearings to have some discussion. We set up a joint hearing with the House and Senate subcommittees to begin a dialog about some of the issues that UA is facing. None of this made any difference. They were not interested and finished with almost same budget numbers as they started with. We were able to make about a $2.5 million adjustment at the last minute in the reduction we would have had. We will probably have to make that up next year because every cut they didn't take from our budget came out of other agencies. The university is very big target. It has a single appropriation. We budget at a very high level which allows the Board of Regents a maximum level of flexibility to meet our problems and allocation the resources where we can. It took many years to get the single appropriation. Budgeting at that high a level has both pros and cons. It gives us flexibility and is highly valued. On the other hand it does not allow the legislature to see what is going on in the university. Wendy spends a lot of time trying to display what is going on at the university in ways they can understand. But when they get down to budget cutting, if they are looking at any other agency of the state, they budget program by program. So when they make a budget cut they can see exactly how many people will be effected. With the university at $169 million they don't see the impact. We need to figure out how to hit the right balance between maintaining our own authority and autonomy but giving them more information on which to accurately assess the impacts. The other issue is that we can not tell them immediately what the impacts will be. Some of those frustrations lead to some of the difficulties that we face in Juneau. The legislature supports education, but they are operating under a lot of biases. It is an Anchorage dominated majority in both the House and the Senate. Their focus is urban. They believe and support UAA and UAF, and they are not sure about UAS and they donšt believe we should be doing anything outside Anchorage and Fairbanks. There is no longer any visible since of most of the legislators of any commitment to the state of Alaska as a whole. That old style of statesmanship is not there. Some of the issues that Scott had outlined in his report will be coming us in this session. The whole issue of research continues to be an issue. We will have a meeting with legislators on September 24th. This is an informal group that was set up between legislators and the Board of Regents. We had one meeting this summer and about 22 legislators showed up at the meeting. It was a very good information exchange for informal exchange. They were able to clear up a lot of misconceptions. The next meeting will be more formal and research is one of the agenda items. The state funded research is what they are most concerned about. There is about $14 million in state research money, of which about $12 million of which comes to UAF. The Anchorage majority members are looking at the needs of their campus. They are looking at ways to get more money for Anchorage. They donšt want to hurt Fairbanks to help Anchorage, but they are looking at the research money as a possible source. They see this money as going to faculty who don't teach. We are putting together a new report on how that money is being expended at the various institutes and programs within UAF. For the most part our argument is based on the leveraging argument which works well on about 75% of the money. The second issue for discussion will be the rural colleges and the extended campuses. That is a big issue for the Anchorage majority. There attitude is that those people who want education can come to Anchorage or Fairbanks. The issue of faculty workload and compensation will certainly come up. Primarily because we will be back with a compensation request. Hopefully, we will have a collective bargaining agreement completed with United Academics. Even if we donšt have a contract they will have a continuation of current compensation package which will go forward to the legislature. That always then focuses attention on what faculty do. The issues of faculty workload is a very hot topic nationally and now over 24 states have mandated faculty workload components mandated by the legislature. Wendy does not expect to see that in Alaska. It is not the nature of the legislature to get involved in the internal management of the University. We have a lot of data to show them, but it is not all good data. The issue came up last year because of the ACCFT. The community college faculty union was vocal with their legislators about how it was in the best interest of the university to not hire those university faculty members because they did not teach as much and they should force the university to just hire community college faculty. That created a lot of problems for the University. Now having two unions will highlight the issue even more. There is a new subcommittee that will be dealing with workforce development and job training that will be mean another program budgeting. Last year's program budgeting dealt with international trade. We lost the Alaska Center for International Business from UAA and it was transferred to the Department of Commerce. It will have an impact on TVC and the extended campuses but will not have a lot of impact on the UAF urban campus. Wendy expects the community college separation issue to be back again. It is an issue that was initiated by the community college faculty. They tried to get a bill in last year and will try again this year. Wendy does not expect any legislation to pass, but it is the context in which a lot of other issues get aired. There are a lot of things we can do to make things better. The Board of Regents are frustrated and want a PR campaign. A PR campaign will not fix anything. What we need to do for our PR is to make sure that the students are happy. That is the most positive thing that will happen. The second thing is that the direction of any energy in terms of trying to enhance our image politically, needs to be focus on the public. The elected officials represent the communities they are elected from. The legislators really listened to their constituents and will not take action that is inconsistent with what they think the voters are saying. If we can move our publics to communicate with their legislators more effectively on our behalf, that does more good than anything. Last year we did a signature ad. Many people thought it was goofy, but it had a great deal of impact. Rural Alaska is very politically active. There were some people that felt the Legislative Committee of the Faculty Senate had not been very active over the last few years. But Wendy sees a great deal of value in having that committee and would encourage the Senate to find faculty who would be interested in putting in some time. There are a lot of important things this committee can do to help the communities become more engaged with the University. Fifteen years ago Wendy came to UAF and asked how many people voted in the last election. Everyone raised they hand. She gets the election results and knows that less than half of the Senate members voted in the last ten years. One of the things the committee can do is to get faculty registered to vote and make sure they do vote. When we only have 40% of the people in the state turn out for an election, then we get what we deserve. A real voter awareness campaign is needed. The students have been very active in getting their fellow students to vote. There is a lot of work that can be done by faculty in working with local groups in their communities. When Wendy visits the service clubs such as Rotary, Chamber, and Kiwanis she see administrative types but rarely sees faculty involved. I think they would be eager to have some faculty forums. What the faculty are the best at is to really talk about the work of the university and get the public and legislature involved in the real work of the university--what happens in the classroom. We need to get legislators (not just interior delegation) into the classrooms. This is the statewide university and the Fairbanks campus must have the support of legislators from all over the state. The Fairbanks alumni group has done a great job. John French asked if there was any effort to try and document some of the projects that are of specific interest to different regions and legislators. Wendy indicated that there was no problem in selling research. There is a high level or appreciation for research. It is real a question of state research dollars. Alaska has probably double the national average of state research money to general fund money. The primary argument is that they are many Alaskan research issues for which there is no federal money available. Carol Barnhardt asked if the meeting between legislators and the Board on September 24th would be open and will there be any opportunity to speak. It is an open meeting but there probably would not be any opportunity for public comment. Wendy also indicated that two things of interest is they are doing another statewide poll to get some baseline information on what the public thinks. The foundation will also pay for economic/social impact studies. This will be done for Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, and rural Alaska. It will give another tool to use with the legislature about the importance of higher education to the state. IV Governance Reports A. ASUAF - S. Nuss Steve Nuss is the President of ASUAF. This year by far has been the rockiest start for ASUAF due to lack of staff. They are in the process of revamping a couple of departments. The tutoring/ academic services primarily. They will be tutoring mostly 100-200 level courses and be getting completely off tutoring 300 level courses. In the past they were doing some 300 level courses. Steve felt that by the 300-400 level courses students should be able to go to the professors or TAs for help. ASUAF is also trying to strengthen their community service department this upcoming year. Opportunities will be posted. The goal is to get a stronger voice for the community and get community support. At the upcoming Board of Regents meeting the ASUAF senate will be a very big presence. We expect to see more students involved. Over the summer it was very slow but the Governance Coordinating Committee did have governance work on the change to the academic calendar. There was some concern about using All Campus Day. At the time Steve did not feel that using that day would have been beneficial. It has been a tradition of clean up and other campus activities. Saturday was not looked at as a good option either. The committee looked at a day at the beginning of the semester as the best option. They will be looking at the calendar for next year soon and hopefully it will not be a problem for next year. B. Staff Council - P. Long Paula Long was out of town and Beverly Frey was ill. A report was not available. C. President's Comments - J. Craven John indicated that there was a faculty vacancy on the Intercollegiate Athlete Committee. If anyone is interested they can speak with Tom Robinson or Kathy Mosca in the Governance Office. The new graduate student representative for the Faculty Senate is Mike Eichholz. Mike is involved in Wildlife. He did his masters degree last year and is now working on his Ph.D. He is representing the Graduate Student Organization. His email address is: FTMWE. The new graduate student selected for the Graduate & Professional Curricular Affairs committee is George Minassian. He is from civil engineering. Nominations for the graduate student representative on GSAC are due September 26th. John briefly summarized his comments that were attached to the agenda. Topics he commented on included the Board of Regents meetings and the policies they passed; the RIP program; the meetings of the planning and development committee and the committees created by President Komisar; John's representation to the Western Governors University; and the academic calendar. He also made some observations on orientation and faculty participation. Finally, discussions on the union/governance relationship issue have been active recently. Last year there was an ad hoc committee appointed. No committee report was ever received and committee members are no longer active with the Senate. [Incorrect: See Senate Minutes of Meeting #68 (December 9, 1996) and Meeting #69 (February 10, 1997); JDC.] John provided a handout with additional comments on this issue. It is included under New Business. John French believes that the ad hoc committee on union relationships should be reconstituted and discussions should continue. He also felt that members of the union should also be on the committee. D. President-Elect's Comments - M. Schatz Madeline's comments were attached to the agenda. Madeline asked that changes in the constitution and bylaw be submitted by the end of the month. V Public Comments/Questions - 1. The following memo and letter were submitted by Don Lynch. UNITED ACADEMICS PRESENTATION TO UAF FACULTY SENATE SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 Donald F. Lynch, Ph.D., Fairbanks Organizational Vice President for United Academics Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. I am the Fairbanks Organizational Vice President for United Academics, your faculty union representing all regular faculty who are not already members of ACC/AFT. The first point I should emphasize to you is that all the officers and others involved directly in United Academics are volunteering their time (and money) because we believe that the very future of quality higher education in the State of Alaska is presently at risk. Let me use a simile. We are on the Good Ship U of A, which is sinking badly. On a sinking ship you have three choices: sit on your hands, cry and pray; jump in the lifeboats and flee; or, man the pumps and seal the holes. United Academics is manning the pumps, which is to say we are handling a large number of grievances against the Administration for: - failure to follow Regent's policies; and, - failure to follow Alaska Labor Relations Law; and, - failure to follow Alaska Wage and Salary Laws. The overall problem, however, is to get the ship safely to port and then repair it. United Academics is working on that issue. Let me explain the problem. Our Statewide Administration claims that the University is desperately short of state funding and, therefore, major changes in faculty status as well as reductions in faculty salaries, benefits and working conditions must be made over the next three years. However, Representative Terry Martin, Vice Chairman of the House Budget and Audit Committee, states that the University of Alaska "will take in more money that it ever has in its entire history" this year and by implication that the university simply does not need an increased state appropriation. In short, Representative Martin simply does not believe what Statewide is telling us. This is a very serious matter; Representative Martin is expressing the view of a majority in the legislature. In short, the legislature simply does not believe Statewide! And all the arguments, data, presented last spring failed utterly to make an impression. Our President has sent us a memorandum asking that the public stand up for increased University funding which he says is critically needed. But the University as an institution can not legally engage in political action. United Academics, in conjunction with other organizations, can, however, legally engage in political action just as other unions do. What can United Academics do? A lot. Based on experience in other states, we can mobilize that support the President wants to save this University. Remember, that our legislature and governor have prided themselves on supporting "Education." Why? "Education" is strongly supported by NEA and other groups, whereas the University has no political support. In other states, this support has come from faculty unions which are very effective politically. United Academics, with the advice and support of AAUP and AFT has the full capability in conjunction with other organizations of turning the University's circumstances around. But: in order to do so, a good contract must first be obtained from the Administration. We had hoped to have a contract by the end of the year so that United Academics could then concentrate on supporting the University. We thought the University shared this common objective. However, the University's latest contract offer suggests that this is not the case. The best way to characterize what the University is proposing is to use the words of Norm Swenson, AFT vice president for higher education: "This is the most regressive proposal I have seen in thirty two years of negotiating." The ideas on faculty workload were first touted over twenty years ago, and were rejected by both faculty governance and eventually by our own Administration when it realized the vast amount of administrative paper work implementing the idea would cause. Other ideas concerning faculty status have previously been strenuously rejected by faculty governance. And the proposed compensation package is even worse than that decisively rejected by all governance groups over a year ago. Their proposals represent ideas from thirty years ago, and if implemented will dramatically increase the administrative overburden on our University. And that is precisely what the Legislature is most concerned about: the already high administrative cost of the University of Alaska. United Academics contract proposals were carefully developed last spring in concert with the faculty. Our proposals will lead to a stronger and vastly more efficient University. They are in concert with previously adopted faculty governance positions. I hope you will understand that actual negotiations have been kept confidential so that both sides could represent their respective positions calmly and correctly and look for areas of mutual agreement. The objective of both sides, we thought, was to obtain a good contract before the end of this year so that we could present a united front to the governor and legislature in an election year. Confidentiality seemed the way to do this. What can Governance and United Academics do together? Faculty Governance is one institution and United Academics another, but both represent the faculty and both contain the same people and have the same objectives. The major difference is that you represent the Fairbanks Campus, whereas, United Academics represents all three campuses. The other fact is that United Academics does not have and can not have your responsibility for academic decision making. First, ideas coming from the faculty governance bodies regarding what should be in a contract are not just welcome, they are needed. They should be presented to the members of the United Academics Assembly, your counterpart institution. The officers you elected to volunteer their time in United Academics need your advice, counsel and support to get a good contract, one which will preserve and enhance quality teaching, research and public service. We do hope, however, that you as Senators will remember that United Academics represents all three campuses, so that we must meld together the viewpoints and circumstances of Southeastern, Anchorage and Fairbanks. You should be pleased to know that the differences quite frankly are not very great, that the faculty circumstances are similar, and that the faculty work together in United Academics just as easily as in the Faculty Alliance. The idea that the faculty on the three campuses are antagonistic to each other is simply not true. As just a final note: you should be aware that the Administration set some years back the goal of adjusting University of Alaska faculty salaries to national averages. That goal has been over-achieved: your salaries today are below national averages. Only four states this year failed to increase funding for higher education. Alaska is a distinguished member of this group of losers. Implementation of the University's contract proposals will take us all further and further behind the rest of the nation in both salaries and benefits including medical care. Next year is election year. If we get a good contract, we as faculty can then play a major role in the elections and save this University. And we can solve the huge credibility gap which now exists between Statewide and the Legislature. The ball really is in our court: do we save the Good ship University of Alaska, or do we let it sink. If we don't, nobody will. ------------------------ Alaska State Legislature Representative Terry Martin Vice-Chairman, Budget & Audit Committee Member, House Finance Committee August 20, 1997 William J. Robertson, President Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce 250 Cushman St. 2D Fairbanks, AK 99701-4665 VIA FAX: (907) 456-6968 Dear Mr. Robertson, Thank you for the copy of Resolution 97-014 concerning the University of Alaska at Fairbanks. I appreciate the work that you are trying to do in securing more funding for your local campus. Though I represent Anchorage, I have been to the University of Alaska Fairbanks many times and do understand the importance of the university system in the Interior. However, I must take exception with one of the comments your organization has made in its resolution. In the resolution, you state that the Legislature has "severely cut back funding of the University of Alaska." I believe you may have "incomplete information" yourself. This year, the entire UA system will take in more money than it ever has in it's ENTIRE HISTORY. I would hardly call this a severe cut-back. It is true that unrestricted general funds where [sic] cut by approximately $3 million. However, off-budget fund allocation such as tuition & fees, university receipts, dormitory & food services, as well as cost recovery amounted to a record number this year. Before 1985, these moneys where [sic] taken directly from unrestricted general funds, but now go directly to the university through an off- budget process. It may also be useful to note that UA-Fairbanks has significantly more funding per student than our own UA-Anchorage. This may be appropriate information in light of your comments that: "UAF is taking the heaviest cut." While it is considered proper, and even necessary for an organization such as yours to lobby for proper funding for your local programs, it is my hope that you will thoughtfully reconsider your resolution and the misleading comments it contains. Sincerely, Representative Terry Martin ----------------------- 2. Burns Cooper presented the following memo to John Craven re: faculty governance relationships for Norm Swazo. To: Dr. John Craven, President, UAF Faculty Senate Fr: Dr. Norman K. Swazo, Associate Professor of Philosophy Re: Faculty Governance at UAF I listened with interest--but also with disappointment--to your presentation at the recent CLA faculty/staff meeting, as well as read your flier-handout. Some of your oral and written remarks cause me continuing concern about the direction the UAF Faculty Senate is taking. Indeed, the rationale which formed part of my protest resignation from the Senate this past spring are, in my view, all the more vindicated. Centrally of concern to me is a position which you, in your capacity as President of the Senate, seem to support, viz., that the Senate will now commit itself to "academic" and "curricular" functions and let "the union" handle the issues of workload, tenure and promotion, compensation, etc. "Union" here refers to United Academics. That the President of the UAF Faculty Senate should explicitly adopt such a position is problematic on several grounds. First, despite the bargaining authority of United Academics as granted by the Alaska Labor Relations Agency (ALRA), there is a significant percentage of the UAF faculty which is non-bargaining and which expects its concerns to be appropriately represented by the traditional institution of faculty governance, viz., the Senate. Second, the Faculty & Scholarly Affairs Committee, as a Standing Committee of the Senate, has constitutionally endowed authority to recommend on policy concerning faculty workload, tenure and promotion, compensation, etc. In the absence of a revision to the Senate's constitution and/or bylaws, it is tantamount to dereliction of duty for the Senate and this committee in particular to abdicate its proper legislative prerogative to United Academics. The claim that workload, tenure and promotion, compensation, etc., are "mandatory items of collective bargaining", while true, is hardly sufficient reason for the Senate, through its appropriate standing committee, not to secure and exercise its constitutionally assigned duties. The claim that the Senate has been ineffective in recent time relative to Statewide action on policy reform is likewise insufficient reason. Third, many of us who worked long and hard to organize United Academics from the outset did so with the express purpose of strengthening faculty governance in the context of its current institutional structure, viz., the Senate. While it may be argued that faculty governance can take various institutional forms, including through a collective bargaining structure such as that of United Academics, nevertheless, the independent legal status of the two unions does not automatically translate into enhanced faculty governance per se. Quite to the contrary, the "unionizing" zeal of AFT in particular and of AAUP (to a lesser extent) goes politically (in my view, coercively) beyond collective bargaining on behalf of faculty and higher education to the totalizing goal of organizing all public employees in the State of Alaska to form a "power-bloc" in pursuit of "union interests". Needless to say, the interests of regional and national affiliates are not entirely benign relative to faculty interests. It is hardly a matter of waxing philosophical to remind of Lord H.B. Acton's adage that power corrupts or that we as a faculty have every right and reason to be vigilant against abuses or power, especially those which are tacit. In short, that the UAF Faculty Senate would not and does not now act to secure its long-term institutional status is nigh impeachable. Accordingly, as former chair of the Senate Faculty & Scholarly Affairs Committee and the (now defunct?) Ad Hoc Committee on Union/Governance Relations, I call upon the UAF Faculty Senate expeditiously to remedy the present state of affairs according to its constitutional responsibilities. Thank you for your time and attention. c: Madeline Schatz, President-Elect, UAF Faculty Senate Burns Cooper, Senator, CLA Division of English & Humanities Lillian Corti, Senator, CLA Division of English & Humanities Ray Gavlak, Chair, Faculty & Scholarly Affairs Committee ********** VI New Business A. Nominations for a Faculty Alliance steering committee for faculty development. The Alliance is moving forward to the creation of a nine member steering committee, three members from each MAU, to discuss how a faculty development program might be created and put forward. The Alliance member from UAF is Kara Nance. John is searching for two other members. Names can be submitted directly to John and he will forward them to the Alliance. B. The issues of faculty/union relationship. The following handout was distributed at the Senate meeting. Comments to the Senate on the Issue of Governance and United Academics Senate Meeting # 73, September 15, 1997 John D. Craven, President, UAF Faculty Senate Thoughtful messages have been exchanged in the last two weeks on the subject of relations between United Academics and faculty governance at the University of Alaska. First, I must make it clear that I am not speaking in my position as chair of the UA Faculty Alliance and I certainly am not speaking for UA Faculty Governance. Second, I am also not speaking for the UAF Faculty Senate or the UAF faculty; I am speaking only as the president of the UAF Faculty Senate. When I speak for the UAF Faculty Senate, my words will be based on motions and/or resolutions by the Senate and the discussions upon which they are based. At the UAF college meetings more than two weeks ago, I said words to the effect that the Senate would concentrate on academic affairs while United Academics spoke on issues of working conditions; salaries, benefits, and anything else that is defined as a mandatory issue for bargaining. That remains my position, but let me say more. First, except for the grievance procedure, I am not aware that any part of the UAF Faculty Senate's Constitution and Bylaws has been voided by the existence of United Academics, and this will not change unless required by a signed contract. That means that all topics previously discussed concerning academic and non-academic issues remain fair game. However, the reality is that there is no reason to expect any response by the administration to formal motions concerned with issues being negotiated or covered by a contract. That does not mean the words will not be heard, but they will be heard equally well through resolutions that do not require presentation to the administration. I am aware of nothing that prevents our committees and the Senate from discussing issues of mandatory negotiation, or anything else being discussed in the negotiations, and then passing resolutions expressing our majority opinions on issues of importance. This is true even if they are strongly directed toward issues of interest only to the membership of United Academics. It may not be fair to others, but it is allowed. What I mean by "not fair" is that this body comprises three groups of individuals; members of ACCFT, members of United Academics, and members who are or will be members, even if they are not interested or wish unions would go away. They are all equal members of the Senate and have equal rights to participate and vote on all issues. Therefore, any issue brought before this Senate will get equal treatment, and there is no proscribed manner, other that a voting majority, that can assure passage in a form that may resemble the intent of the person moving the motion. My point to my fellow members of United Academics is that you will want to exercise care lest a motion inspired by you does not equal, or even is in opposition to your intent. Clearly, United Academics possesses the greater number of bargaining unit members on this campus, but that need not be so elsewhere, and on this campus ACCFT members have made outstanding contributions to this Faculty Senate without the need to introduce here their bargaining unit issues. All members must remember the importance of collegiality. In closing, I want to publicly acknowledge United Academic's strong support for faculty governance in their negotiations with the administration. I support it and thank the officers for their efforts. I have admitted before and I do here again acknowledge that I am more easily moved to interests in academic issues than to many of the issues at the heart of a union, such as salaries, working conditions and benefits. A fundamental strength of committees and larger bodies such as this is the diversity of backgrounds and personal interests that, in a collective form, give us the breadth to cover the diverse range of issues with which we are confronted. It is the same with the governance/union issue. I rely on many of you here who are gifted or inclined to these other issues to provide the Senate's strength. Please do not cease in your efforts. ------------------ The Senate passed a motion to confirm an ad hoc committee at the Senate meeting #67 on November 11, 1996. The committee consisted of the chairs of Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement, Faculty Appeals & Oversight, and Faculty Affairs. John asked for comments from the Senate. Tom Robinson indicated that we should have the same committee structure and include union representation. This would include one member from each bargaining union. John French indicated that it was important to have good coordination between the union and governance. Ron Gatterdam spoke against the committee. VII Committee Reports & Discussion of known Issues for this academic year John indicated that the purpose of this Senate meeting was to develop a list of issues to be worked on this year by the committees. The following handout was distributed at the Senate meeting. Faculty Senate Issues for 1997-98 John Craven, President, UAF Faculty Senate (UNDER CONSTRUCTION) (NOT LISTED BY PRIORITY) Curricular Affairs (G. McBeath) * Petition policy An ad hoc committee drafted a proposal and submitted it. It still needs work. * UALC credits as applicable towards UAF residency credit * Contact time for distance delivered courses * Common grade policy between MAUs (coming from Alliance) This is motivated by the needs of students transferring among the MAUs and, especially, students taking course from more than one MAU via distance delivery. The Alliance is attempting to write a grade policy for submission to all MAUs. * Common definitions for 100-, 200-, etc. course levels (Not individual courses) (coming from Alliance). The Alliance has been asked by the SAC to look at the definitions by the Board of Regents and the three MAUs (which do differ) and construct draft common definitions. * Board of Regents rewrite of Student Affairs Policies. The BOR has rewritten and greatly expanded their policies and regulations, and have now forwarded the drafts for governance review. These materials are being distributed to the committee (Other committees?) * Common course numbering (lurking in the Board of Regents) The Board of Regents is keen on the creation of a common course numbering system. This is not a trivial issue, but is not a high priority item for us at this time. Faculty and Scholarly Affairs (R. Gavlak) * Status of union/senate representation. * Can a UAF faculty member earn a Ph.D. at UAF? (Also at Grad. Prof. Curricular Affairs) Investigate possibilities and ethical bounds. Graduate and Professional Curricular Affairs (K. Nance) * Oversight and review of the new Masters degree requirements * TOEFL requirements and waiver process * Interdisciplinary Ph.D.s * Requirements to earn an MS/MA while working on a Ph.D. Establish means for a graduate student to gain a MS or MA degree as part of a Ph. D. program once the appropriate requirements have been met. * Admission requirements for Teacher's Certificates in School of Education * Reporting results of graduate oral and written comprehensive exams. Once started, exam must be competed and results reported. Unhappy result can not be made to go away. * Can a UAF faculty member earn a Ph.D. at UAF? (Also at Faculty and Scholarly Affairs) Investigate possibilities and ethical bounds. * Common grade policy between MAUs (coming from Alliance, first to Curricular Affairs) This is motivated by the needs of students transferring among the MAUs and, especially, students taking course from more than one MAU via distance delivery. The Alliance is attempting to write a grade policy for submission to all MAUs. * Common definitions for 100-, 200-, etc. course levels (Not individual courses) (coming from Alliance). The Alliance has been asked by the SAC to look at the definitions by the Board of Regents and the three MAUs (which do differ) and construct draft common definitions. * Common course numbering (lurking in the Board of Regents) The Board of Regents is keen on the creation of a common course numbering system. This is not a trivial issue, but is not a high priority item for us at this time. * Copyright issue Core Review (G. Brown) * Core course assessment process. Continue the process of planning the Educational Effectiveness Evaluation process for UAF's CORE curriculum. * "W" and "O" courses. Increase available upper division courses and assist those already established. * Continue Reviewing petitions to the CORE. Curriculum Review (J. French) * Will review course and degree requirement requests. Developmental Studies (J. Weber) * Outcomes assessment for developmental courses * Transition between developmental and academic courses * Role of the rural campuses and developmental education * Improving student placement into developmental (and academic) courses * Document how students from developmental courses do in 100- and 200-level courses Faculty Appeals and Oversight (B. Alexander) * Review of administrator evaluation * Structure of committee in light of bargaining unit's memorandum with UA on appeals * Consideration of materials for distance delivery in application for tenure and promotion * Department head training (goes where?) Faculty Development, Assessment and Improvement (D. Porter) * Creation of permanent committee to oversee Faculty Seminar Series. Tabled at until September 15th meeting so committee could formulate a motion. * Creation of faculty development policy * Need for a Faculty Handbook? Linda Curda's suggestion. UAS has completed on. Copy to be obtained. UAA? * Consideration of materials for distance delivery in application for tenure and promotion. This is a request from the UALC. There is evidence that this may not be given adequate consideration. (Also to University-Wide Tenure and Promotion Committee?) Graduate School Advisory Committee (S. Henrichs) * Intellectual property for graduate students. Draft statement exists. Needs to be reviewed by faculty and students. * Counting graduate students Certain categories of graduate students (e.g., those registering only during the summer and those enrolled in the TFA program) have not been counted in graduate enrollment figures. GSAC needs to follow up with the graduate school and the registrar to ensure that all students are counted appropriately. * TA training GSAC needs to develop recommendations for TA training. * Graduate school funding The graduate school administers several types of graduate student support. such as resource fellowships, thesis completion scholarships, tuition scholarships, travel grants. GSAC has been considering whether any changes in the administration of these funds should be made. Legislative and Fiscal Affairs (S. Deal) * Charge of the committee. This committee has not been active. Discuss possibilities for a more productive committee. Motion to eliminate was tabled in the spring. Service Committee (K. Nance) * Identification of service learning courses at UAF * Formalization of outreach mission statement * Lessons learned from orientation activities - communications with faculty and with its participation University-Wide Tenure and Promotion Review * Consideration of materials for distance delivery in application for tenure and promotion. This is a request from the UALC. There is evidence that this may not be given adequate consideration. OTHER ITEMS ACCFT is currently formulating a draft policy/procedures for the promotion and tenure review of ACCFT members. After review by the CRA Faculty Council it will be forwarded to the Senate for review. Ad hoc Committees: Committee to review instructor approvals for distance-delivered courses: Madeline Schatz and Paul Layer. Ad hoc committee to study the relationship and/or structures of faculty governance at universities in which the faculty are unionized. Membership includes the chairs of Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement, Faculty Appeals & Oversight, and Faculty & Scholarly Affairs. ------------------ A. Curricular Affairs - G. McBeath The following report of the committeešs September 9th meeting was distributed as a handout and lists the issues the committee will be working on this year. MINUTES OF CURRICULAR AFFAIRS MEETING, September 9, 1997 The committee convened at 3:45 p.m. in Wood Center B. All committee members with the exception of Sukumar Bandopadhyay and the student representative were present. The committee discussed two items--the agenda for the upcoming academic year and the meeting time. I. AGENDA A. UALC. The committee discussed a host of issues concerned with UALC. Most pressing seemed to be the assignment of residency credits for distance-delivered courses through UALC, but also mentioned were the approval process for UALC courses, instructor approval, acceptance of courses, and contact hours. The committee requested Maynard Perkins, who is a member of the statewide UALC steering committee, and Ann Tremarello to apprise the committee when any of the UALC issues has jelled sufficiently to be put on the agenda. B. The committee discussed UA's development of a common grading policy between MAUs and criteria for establishing course levels, and awaits draft policy language from the faculty alliance. C. The committee discussed the Western Governor's University in the context of UALC and distance-delivered courses. D. The committee formed its agenda for the next meeting: l) Response to the request of Early Childhood Development for a change in course equivalents when a student has a national child development associate (CDA) certificate. The chair will invite Patty Merritt to its next meeting, and act on this request then. 2) Address the compressibility issue as it pertains to 500-level courses. The chair will ask summer session coordinator Jackie Hendrix and perhaps others to prepare a proposal for committee review. 3) Ann Tremarello has an issue for the committee to consider. E. New Issues: l) Exceptions/waivers of the current graduation with honors policy. 2) Impact of the new banner system on academic/curricular policy. 3) Contact hours in general--use in lab hours for voc/tech courses, junior college/senior college issues, etc. 4) Impact of ADA on curricular/academic policy. II. MEETING TIME The 3:45 p.m., Tuesday, time slot was convenient for all members in attendance. The next meeting will be held on October 7, same time. The chair will contact Sukumar and student representative to see what can be done to facilitate their attendance at the next meeting. Submitted by J. McBeath, Sept. 10. B. Faculty & Scholarly Affairs - R. Gavlak Ray provided the following handout of the minutes of the committee's September 9th meeting. Faculty and Scholarly Affairs Committee September 9, 1997 Meeting Minutes Present: B. Cooper, R. Gavlak (audio), B. Mortensen, B. White, and J. Yarie 1. Meeting time: Ray Gavlak indicated a conflict was identified with our current meeting time. Hans Nielsen's schedule prevents his attendance at the currently scheduled meeting time. After surveying committee member teaching schedules, the only relatively convenient time for everyone was 4-5 p.m. on Mondays. The Faculty and Scholarly Affairs Committee agreed to meet Mondays 4-5 p.m. for the fall semester, 9/22, 10/20, and 11/17. 2. Role of the Senate and this committee vis-a-vis United Academics: This issue arose in Senate meetings last year and has been raised again this year, notably in a memo from Norm Swazo to John Craven. In general, the issue is whether Governance has a role to play in workload and salary issues that are subject to collective bargaining. We discussed various aspects of this issue but did not resolve it. Bob White suggested this also might be an issue that Senate leadership should discuss with University Administration. The committee was not sure of the United Academics leadership position on this. More discussion is planned. A specific issue was the resolution passed Dec. 9, 1996 by the full Senate requesting that a member of the Senate Faculty Affairs Committee (now Faculty and Scholarly Affairs) be included both in United Academics Executive Board deliberations on contract negotiations and on the negotiating team itself. Several complications were mentioned: 1) No one present wanted to volunteer for this role. 2) Non-members of the union probably wouldn't be allowed on the negotiating team. Adding anyone, even union members, to the negotiating team might be legally complicated; it was suggested that we should ask "the lawyers" about this. 3) The union itself would need to agree to adding people, and we were not sure that they would. We also discussed whether the interaction between United Academics and Senate should not include more Senate members than just those on this committee. No specific action taken, except a plan for further discussion. 3. Faculty conflict of interest issue: the question has arisen whether a faculty member hired by UAF without a terminal degree should to be able to pursue that degree from UAF. Apparently this is not just hypothetical; there are real cases involved. Bob White said that there is actually a policy on the books (vintage to be determined), but could not remember exactly what it said. Ray suggested that it should be jointly discussed by Faculty and Scholarly Affairs Committee, the Graduate School Advisory Committee, and the Graduate and Professional Curricular Affairs Committee. There was general agreement that caution is necessary: allowing this practice might be a dangerous precedent and could lead to ethics problems both for the professor involved and those who do the hiring. No action taken until the committee reviews the existing policy. Submitted by: Burns Cooper and Ray Gavlak, Chair C. Graduate & Professional Curricular Affairs - M. Whalen The Committee met on September 11 and elected Michael Whalen as interim chair. They briefly discussed a few of the items on the list including a discussion of faculty members earning a Ph.D. at UAF. John indicated that it was his hope that the common definitions for course levels will go through the Faculty Alliance on Friday and get to the Graduate & Professional Curricular Affairs and the Curricular Affairs committees next week. John will be very interested in comments on these drafts. D. Core Review - J. Brown A report was submitted with the agenda. E. Curriculum Review - J. French Nothing to review as of yet. The purpose of the committee is to review academic course requests. The deadline for submittal is October 31. F. Developmental Studies - J. Weber A report was submitted with the agenda. Their first committee meeting will be on September 23rd. G. Faculty Appeals & Oversight - B. Alexander No report was available. John indicated they would be working on the review of administrators and possibly department head training. H. Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement - D. Porter No report was available. The committee will need to address a motion on the seminar series from last year. I. Graduate School Advisory Committee - S. Henrichs A report was submitted with the agenda. J. Legislative & Fiscal Affairs - S. Deal A report was submitted with the agenda. There has not been a meeting yet because this committee needs members. Scott felt there was a need for the committee and invites people to join the committee. First of all he does not want to dismiss the important of the union. However, the union is responsible for several areas-- wage and benefits, working conditions, and hours. That leaves a large spectrum of other things we need to deal with with the legislature. We also need to know what they are doing and have a funnel of communication. There is nothing like familiarity and faces and conversations to influence Juneau. Secondly, forty percent of faculty are members of the union. That leaves 60 percent of the rest of the faculty that have not representation if we do not have some sort of channel or opportunity to disperse information about what is going on down in Juneau and vice versa. Finally, we do need to coordinate our activities together with union. We will be much more effective as a faculty and as a university if we present a united front. In meeting and discussing the purpose and direction of the Legislative & Fiscal Affairs Committee the top of the agenda will be creative ways to work together between the union and the Senate. K. Service Committee - K. Nance Tara Maginnis indicated that the committee will be working on the topics on John's list. L. University-wide Promotion & Tenure - John Keller The 1996-97 Annual Report was submitted with the agenda. Issues the committee will consider include a request from UALC to look at how materials done for distance delivery is considered in the promotion and tenure review. This year the ACCFT members will be reviewed in Fairbanks and the committee will be looking at the review process. M. Other committees - John Craven John Craven appointed an ad hoc committee to look at instructor approval by department heads for distance-delivery courses. Members are Madeline Schatz and Paul Layer. VIII Discussion Items A. Banner Faculty Workload Module - Gorden Hedahl & Hans Nielsen Gorden Hedahl indicated that there was a workload module that is part of Banner. One aspect of Banner is that it cross talks between the student information and the faculty personnel information. The course is cross-listed with the faculty member and Banner has an automatic calculation for adding each three credit course as a percentage of workload. We argued that each three credit course does not always equal the same percentage of workload for every faculty. After a great deal of discussion they will not use that roll over feature part of Banner. The committee will enter on a screen called non-instructional activities the faculty workload report which will include service, research, and instructional activity as a percentage as negotiated in the faculty workload. This means that everybody should make sure their faculty workload is on file. It does mean that there is not an automatic cross-over on banner. They will be entering workload in the next month. All instruction and other areas will be on the screen labeled non instructional activity and will total 100 percent. Hans Nielsen indicated that he did not like word non-instructional as it is too non-essential or things like that. It is difficult to decide how you count all other areas of workload. John French asked how it will be changed based on negotiations. Gorden indicated that with the single screen in should not be a problem making changes. John Craven indicated that when parts of this were put on the web last spring the graduate student coordinator for each department was the recipient of all the research and thesis credit hours for that college as opposed to the credit going to the individual faculty member. IX Members' Comments/Questions John French indicated that all faculty members are represented by the United Academic negotiation whether they pay dues or not. Therefore it is important to look at the changes that are being proposed. Many are changes that the Senate took issue on in the past. Many of the changes would drastically change the way we do business today. It is very important that we improve communication between the union and all faculty. John Craven mentioned that one of the goal he had was to increase communication. The Chancellor will fund the additional effort for the Governance Office to place all Senate policies on the web. The object this year is to place all policies on line so that you can go to an index, find the subject, and see the policy. We would like to write a synopsis of the current state of each issue at the beginning. We will report on this as they happen. X Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 3:40 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.