MINUTESUAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #124Monday, September 20, 20041:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.Wood Center Conference Room C/D
I	Call to Order – Abel Bult-Ito Faculty Senate President Abel Bult-Ito called the meeting to order at 1:05 p.m.	A.	Roll Call

Members Present:  
	Members Absent: 	
Allen, Jane	Bailey, Scott	
Anahita, Sine	He'bert, Michele	
Ayagarak, Nancy	Iken, Katrin	
Barnhardt, Carol	Konar, Brenda	
Barry, Ron	Prakash, Anumpa	
Bult-Ito, Abel	Shur, Yuri	
Cahill, Cathy	Tannehill, Linda	
Cockern, Cliff	Thompson, Joseph	
Cysewski, Steve		
Davis, Mike		
Erickson, Karen		
Genetti, Jon	Others Present:  	
Gray, Patty (Gary Holton)	Erhlander, Mary	
Hannigan, Michael	Gregory, Gayle	
Haugen, Lee	Jones, Steve	
Kawula, John (Anne Foster)	Layer, Paul	
Lan, Ping	Layral, Sheri	
Leguard, Joan	Martin, Wanda	
Nakaneczny, Michael	Mulder, Christa	
Newberry, Rainer	Reichardt, Paul	
Patil, Shirish	Schamel, Doug	
Reynolds, Jennifer	Smith, Steve	
Roberts, Larry		
Smith, Jeannette		
Weber, Jane 		
Wies, Richard		
Wisen, Craig		
Zhang, Mingchu (Jennifer McBeath)		

Non-Voting Members Present:  
	Non-Voting Members Absent:	
Aspnes, John - Dean, CEM	Walker, Thom - ASUAF	
Morrow, Phyllis - Dean, CLA	GSO Student 	
Salganek, Maya - Staff Council 		
Stickel, Tim - Registrar		

	B.	Approval of Minutes to Meeting #122 & 123
Approval of the minutes for meeting #122 (April 7, 2003) and #123 (May 5, 2003) were postponed.  
  	C.	Adoption of AgendaThe agenda was adopted with the addition of Steve Smith as a guest speaker and moving the Ad hoc Review Committee report to be the first item under VII - Committee Reports.  

II	Status of Chancellor's Office Actions	A.	Motions Approved:		1.	Motion to amend the "UAF Advanced Placement Credit" 			for Foreign Languages to incorporate Alaska Native 			Languages.		2.	Motion to amend the policy on Stacked and Cross-listed 			courses.		3.	Motion to approve a change in the residency 			requirements for military personnel pursuing an 			AA/AAS approved* program as part of the 			ServiceMembers Opportunity College (SOC).		4.	Motion to adopt regulations for course syllabi.		5.	Motion to amend the Graduate Full or Part-time 			Status/Study Load policy.		6.	Motion to amend the Graduate Degree Requirements 			for the Master of Arts with Project and the Master of 			Science with Project.		7.	Motion to amend the "Appeals Policy for Academic 			Decisions Other Than Assignment of Grades".		8.	Motion to approve the Unit Criteria for the Department 			of Anthropology.		9.	Motion to approve the Unit Criteria for Mathematics.		10.	Motion to amend the UAF "Regulations for the 			Appointment and Evaluation of Faculty" (Blue Book).	B.	Motions Pending:  none

III	Public Comments/Questions - 
Susan Andrews and John Creed from the Chuchi campus in Kotzebue provided public comments on the issues regarding president-elect Michael Hannigan.  Susan and John restated many of their comments and issues related to the alleged diploma mill Ph.D. degree of Michael, which they had previously expressed in public.  These comments and concern included the credibility of the Faculty Senate while it is lead by a president-elect/ president with a diploma mill Ph.D. degree.  They chose to make these issues public to make the public aware and the outside appears to be more appalled than the inside of the university.  John Creed commented that he did not understand why the committee did not address the legitimacy of Michael Hannigan's Ph.D. degree.  In addition, he is disappointed about the way this situation has been handled.  Susan Andrews expressed that Michael Hannigan has misrepresented himself as a Ph.D. and that it is hard to imagine how a faculty member with an illegitimate degree can demand hard work from students for their degree or have the respect of the students.  She said that the committee did not answer their most basic question.  The public is outraged and does not really understand why this situation is not dealt with.

IV	Governance Reports
	A.	President's Comments - Abel Bult-Ito  
Abel Bult-Ito gave a report on his attendance at the Board of Regents meeting the week of September 14-15, 2004.  He reported on the tuition increase.  The students gave public testimony against the increase, but that did not sway the BOR.  The Academic and Student Affairs Committee discussed the Academic Freedom policy that the Faculty Alliance put forward.  The General Counsel because of legalistic type of interpretations turned it down.  In a discussion with Jim Johnson, Vice President of Faculty and Staff Relations, and the Regents committee members, they argued that it is not part of the collective bargaining agreement for both unions so therefore they can not proceed with this and put it into BOR policy.  Abel  countered that if it was in BOR policy, then it is an issue that can be put into the CBA the next time it's negotiated.  We know that the collective bargaining agreement overrides any UAF or BOR policy.  Discussions will continue.  

Another item that came up was that statewide administration was considering a review of Regent’s policy 10 - Academic Affairs.  That general review is on hold.  

Statewide is also reviewing the BOR policy how it may conflict with governance bylaws and regulations and procedures.  Abel was assured that any proposed changes would be brought to governance for approval.

The Human Resources Committee reviewed the UAChoice health plan for staff.  They are negotiating with the unions to make that health plan available to faculty as well.  They are doing a review of system governance regulations.  They will put something forward at the next Board of Regents meetings.  We will keep a tab on the governance issues that come up that they might want to change.  

Paul Reichardt provided Abel with a memo dated September 7, from the campus deans/directors, subject regarded Transcription Certificates of Completion.  It suggests that students completing 30 credits of a training program be given a Certificate of Completion.  Students cannot get financial aid if they are not in a program.  It is hard for employers to identify this information on a transcript.  They suggest that the certificate of completion be recognized as a program with a degree as the end result, which would be the Certificate of Completion.  

Provost Reichardt indicated that SAC (the three provosts) still have questions on the transcripts part.  At this time everything that is transcripted can be verified by the Registrar’s office.  There is nothing written into this proposal that allows Tim Stickel to know for sure what the students may have completed.  It puts the Registrar and University in an uncomfortable situation.  The question is do we want to come up with the documentation practices that follow what we do for Board of Regents approved certificates, associate degrees, Ph.D. or do we want to allow departments to issue certificates of completion that are not transcripted but still recognized by employers.  Abel indicated that he saw this as a win-win situation for the students and the university.  He didn't think that it would need faculty approval.  

Abel indicated that we still need a member on the Unit Criteria committee (from the CRA/CES unit).  

For committee reports, Abel reminded the chairs to include in their reports other issues their committees will tackle this academic year.  

Abel welcomed all the returning senators and new senate members.  The work of the Senate is done at the committee level and very much appreciated.  

The final item is the ad hoc review committee.  It was his intention to provide the Senators with a set of independent findings.  These findings would address the issues raised by John Creed and Susan Andrews concerning President-Elect, Michael Hannigan.  Abel indicated that the Faculty Senate sets standards for all UAF degree and certificate programs.  As such the academic reputation of UAF depends on the reputation and integrity of the Faculty Senate and members who serve it.  Abel appointed an ad hoc review committee to provide due process to Michael Hannigan as well as John Creed and Susan Andrews who brought forth the allegations.  He charged the committee to find out whether the Ph.D. from the International University of Graduate Studies in the Caribbean nation of St. Kitts and Nevis is a legitimate Ph.D. according to generally accepted academic standards.    This was a logical path to take because it was at the core of allegations brought by John Creed and Susan Andrews.  Unfortunately, the committee did not answer to this charge.  Therefore, the rest of the charges given to the committee have been answered out of context.  If the allegation that Michael Hannigan uses a diploma mill degree to advance his career at UAF had determined to be false, this would have been established and would have stopped any further deliberations.  However, if the committee would have substantiated the allegations then the committee was expected to give some guidance as to whether 1) any Faculty Senate constitutional provisions or bylaws had been violated, and/or 2) whether, in their professional opinion, Michael Hannigan should continue as president elect and a member of the Faculty Senate.  

Abel feels that any elected Faculty Senate member or officer is subject to recall or removal according to Faculty Senate bylaws.  This requires using Roberts Rules of Order.  For a President or President-elect who is elected by the member of the Senate, this requires a 2/3-majority vote.  Abel feels that it is the Senate's responsibility and duty to uphold our own standards and remove those that violate ethical and professional standards of our profession.  He believes strongly that the Faculty Senate has the authority to question the credibility of its members through a Faculty Senate driven process.  The ad hoc committee was appointed as part of due process which  could result in a recall or removal of Faculty Senate members or officers by a 2/3-majority vote.  

Abel has not addressed the content of the report from the committee.  He has indicated what is missing from it.  Norm Swazo will report on the committee's findings and to answer questions.  

Mike Davis asked if Abel's report was available.  Abel indicated that he was reading from his notes and it will be reflected in minutes at the next meeting.  Norm's report was email report to off-campus Senators. 
	B.	President-elect's Report - Michael Hannigan	Michael Hannigan spoke about a report titled "The Final Report for the President's Ad Hoc Committee for Distance Education, the University of Alaska," June 2004.  Marjorie Payton-Hewlet, Educational Consultant, wrote the report.  There is no listing of committee members.  Michael is not sure how the report will be used.  It does contain some recommendations that have implications for staffing and allocation of resources.  It has implications for educational delivery and programs and faculty.  There is some methodology that is interesting.  The sample it is based upon was 60 distance education students out of over 7000 students.  Out of the 60 students, only 33 responded.  Sixteen are on the road system and the rest are divided between UAS, UAA, and UAF.  Those 33 students make up the large part of the data in this report.  The other portion is telephone interviews of student services personal at 15 different campuses.  Michael is not sure what the report is all about and is alarmed that it is a final report to the President.  It does not appear to have any faculty input.   He feels that an ad hoc committee should look at the report or steer it toward Developmental Studies Committee.  

Chancellor Jones asked to look at the report.  Paul Reichardt indicated that there has been another report from PACDE, headed by Jason Oler, which had other faculty representation.  And, the Johnstone Report has been around.  

Steve Cysewski stated that the author worked with the Center for Distance Education and the statewide ITS committee looking at the need for advising distance education students.  She was formerly the head of advising at the Mat-Su campus and has been an important part of the statewide ITS committee in developing advising material and documenting the needs for advising for students getting a distance education.  One of the purposes of statewide ITS is to support an approved statewide ITS program.  One of the biggest failings we have is not having consistent advising.  

Michael felt there were good ideas in the report, but it is based on a very small sampling of students.  And the questions asked are shaped to get a particular response.  Jane Weber asked if the Senators can get a copy of the report.  

Chancellor Jones responded that he had not seen that report.  It is a report to the President's Ad Hoc Committee for Distance Education.  The Sally Johnstone report, which he and the provost are familiar with, was also presented to this committee.  Since then the committee has presented it's final report to the President.  Among other things it calls for another MAU for Distance Education.  The President is not going to embrace that, instead he wants to work with us through CDE to do some of the things the PACDE, Jason Oler, report is recommending.  

Abel indicated that at the Board of Regent's meeting Mike Sfraga gave a presentation of UAOnline.  One of the goals there is to get all the distance education courses in a format that can go across MAUs so that students can sign up for a set of courses that they can search by discipline, campus, or other ways.  Maybe this came out of the PACDE's report.  Students just have to look at one screen to get everything they need.  

Michael Hannigan expressed his concern that this was final report.  He wasn't sure if it was a report to be used as a starting point for further discussion or a final report.  

	C.	Staff Council - Maya Salganek 		
Maya Salganek is the new President-Elect for Staff Council.  They had a meeting the previous week.  Staff Council will be looking at various issues over the upcoming year.

Staff Affairs is looking at the Performance Based Budgeting.  They are looking at issues that particularly relate to staff.  Of the eight that have been proposed, two are staff related: 1) maximizing recruitment of staff and faculty and 2) enhance staff effectiveness through automated processes.  They are trying to find ways of implementing them and defining them.  They are working with the statewide system on those issues.  

They are also looking at doing a community service outreach program.  Josh Steadman and Maya spoke to Chancellor Jones about this.  The idea is to try to create a program where staff could volunteer in a very concrete way, such as a house built for Habitat for Humanity by UAF staff and faculty.   This is a way to make us more visible and more of an outreach unit.  

In addition, they have been working with their Staff Advocacy Committee on getting voter registration and registrar throughout Staff Council.  Both staff and faculty are pretty dismal voters during the elections so they are doing all they can to emphasize the effectiveness of our campaign efforts.  They will be doing registration at various events.  It is still not too late to be come a registrar and there are classes twice a week on Mondays and Wednesdays.   The last day to register people is October 3rd.  

A big effort of the Ad Hoc Work Place Ethics Committee is focusing on supervisor training.  The concern at the staff level is that when a new department chair comes on board, there may be a variety of interpretation of what is done from one department to another.  The idea is to consolidate some of this discrepancy that occurs that may result in different treatment of different staff members at different times of their career.  This will affect faculty very much.  What the committee is doing is trying to come up with ideas from the staff of what would help, but also work closely with faculty to find out what is useful to faculty.  They don't want to enforce a training program that is not useful to the supervisors involved.  They would like to get a faculty liaison to serve on this committee.  

A Compensation Task Force at statewide with Staff Alliance is looking at all of the different forms of measuring pay, salary, bonuses, tuition waivers--everything that goes into a package to keeps and retain staff.  And how that compares to other universities both in the lower 48 and in the state.  There were some surveys that went out in the summer.  The number one issue for staff is to have a cost of living increase built in.  At this point staff have a step increase that is tied to the longevity of an employee.  It does not relate to cost of living increases.  At the last BOR there was a proposal to bring a 2.6% cost of living increase to the table also with a 2% step increase.  

All Staff Council meetings are open and you are welcome to come.  

Abel asked how the UAF staff perceive the UAF health plan.  Maya indicated that as far as she can tell very favorable.  There has not been any negative feedback.  The primary thing is being able to opt out if you already have a health care program.  Having options for more benefits.  Staff health care costs are going up extremely quickly and are predicted to continue at a 15% rate for the next couple of years.  

Maya was part of a two-day retreat that was a statewide initiative on a wellness program.  It is in the drafting stage right now.  There was a faculty representative or two as well.  The university is looking at other measures to control costs such as get everyone healthier.  There is no other way to make it affordable.  
	D.	ASUAF -Thom Walker / GSO -   	

No one was available to give a report.  V	A.	Remarks by Chancellor Steve Jones  	Chancellor Jones thanked the Faculty Senate for allowing him to address the body.  In June he requested from each of the units to give him a no more than two page unit snap shot so that he understands who you are and what you do and why you are important to the University.  He also asked units to tell him what the most important issues facing UAF are in three different levels of urgency.  Those that need addressing immediately, within the first six-months, and those issues that need to be address in the first year.  Governance issues in many ways are coincident with issues expressed by other units across the campus.  

The first issue was communication--starting a dialogue with faculty and staff and keeping communication channels open.  He thinks Abel, Maya, and Mike will agree that there is good progress in establishing a relationship in meetings on a regular basis.  Something to talking about in a general sense is how can we encourage greater informal interaction with faculty and staff.  Perhaps some kind of cross-section of faculty or staff once a quarter, once every couple month maybe getting together for breakfast or lunch and talking about what's on the minds of a representative cross-section.  This idea is still being explored   The Chancellor is attempting to record his thoughts and reflections on an ongoing basis on the Chancellor’s website.  He is giving presentations to different groups and will occasionally post those.  This will give staff and faculty a glimpse into his mind on how he perceives things at the university.  He encouraged everyone to read the website.  Also suggested was holding a convocation at the beginning of the fall semester.  They are looking at October or early November to attempt to schedule a fall convocation.  

The second item is support for shared governance.  He believes that any decisions that are made at his level and at the Cabinet level need to be fully informed by the perspectives of faculty, staff and students.  Not every discussion will they bring to us because of limited time.  At the higher level of decisions it is essential that we have input so that decisions are more informed and better directed.  This position is intended to serve the entire university.  And it is the Senate, the staff and the students who are the people that make the university run.  The role of the Provost and Chancellor is to be enablers.  

The third item is Work Ethics, Diversity and Tolerance.  After six weeks on the job, this is not an issue that he has spent much time on.   Maya Salganek and Josh Steadman talked with him last week about supervisory accountability and training.   They explored how critically important it is for any supervisor to make absolutely certain they understand the critical importance of relating to people in a way that benefits everyone.  Supervisors should know how to work towards that objective.  Most of this includes basic relationship and treating people with respect and dignity both up and down.

Faculty and staff hires from underrepresented populations are something that the Chancellor needs to know more about.  We need to make sure that we are doing all we can to continue to recruit and have the kind of work place environment where we can retain them.  

Moral is another issue.  This was stated that it is partly due to statewide administration not looking at recommendations from faculty and UAF administration not being assertive enough in supporting faculty at the statewide administration level.  The Chancellor stated that he is our advocate.  He will not be shy about being assertive.  President Hamilton is easy to talk with and will listen.  As a champion for UAF, you will have a strong voice at statewide.

On Performance Based Budgeting, again it was stated that we need a strong advocate.  It is something that we are spending a great deal of time talking about.  One answer the Chancellor will not accept with respect to budgeting or any other major decisions is "That’s the way that we have always done it."  Performance Based Budgeting is one area where we are getting away from the way we used to do things.  He is pleased to see in the Academic Affairs office and elsewhere across the university, that we are getting serious about rewarding performance and emphasizing performance in terms of how we allocate budget dollars.  

In regards to compensation and benefits for the FY05, we had a 2.7% across the board and a 2% pool for market adjustment.  What is projected for FY06 is the same 2.7% across the board, plus the same 2% pool for market adjustment.  For FY07 the same 2.7% across the board and 1% for market adjustment and 1% for merit.  We are looking another two years down the line before we have the opportunity to do much in the way of merit increases.  The staff salary increases are a little more formulated without the opportunity to cover the cost of living beyond the steps that are formula driven.  

One of the things that the Chancellor wants to do is be an advocate for UAF both at statewide and also in Juneau and anywhere else we have our elected officials.  It is imperative that our legislators know the kinds of things we do at this university and how essential and fundamentally important we are to the state of Alaska.   And also the tremendous obligation that they should have to making sure that this university not only maintains itself but make the move from where we are to the next level as the people we serve demand and expect.  We can’t continue to have fewer and fewer percentage of our total budget paid from state appropriations and expect to stay on the cutting edge of excellence.  

The big issue with facilities, especially after this past summer, is that it's hot in a lot of buildings on campus.  There is a problem in cooling a number of buildings on this end of campus.  One of the things in the Capital Budget that the Regents approved last week was the new chiller plant work to serve this end of campus.  Paul Reichardt indicated that it is going to be a real struggle with the legislator to come up with a reasonable plan to do some of these things that we really need to do.   We have done the work, but our opportunities to do that sort of thing are very limited.  It's an area where we really have to pay attention to the legislative process and the political climate.  

Chancellor Jones spoke about "Measuring up 2004".  It is a state report card on higher education from the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.  It says it evaluates states on their performance in higher education because it is the states that are primarily responsible for educational access and quality in the U.S.  In this report card, higher education refers to all education and training beyond high school including all public and private, 2 and 4 year, profit and not-for-profit institutions.  The report card grades six overall performance categories:  Preparation (B-); Participation (C); Affordability (F); Completion (F); Benefits (B); and Learning (I).   Some policy questions that it raises are:  Can higher education build upon partnerships with K-12 to improve student achievement and preparation?  Can Alaska provide more opportunities for working age adult to enroll in higher education?  It talks about the Scholars Program and challenges us to go a step beyond and find need based financial aid for our qualified students.  How can community colleges increase participation in higher education and make it more affordable?  Can Alaska close the gap in educational achievement between whites and minority residents?  Given that Alaska is one of the lowest performing states of completion, can it's colleges and universities encourage students to complete degrees and certificates in a timely manner.  The Chancellor just read the executive summary and it looks like some interesting material.  These are some of the challenges that we face together.  We should all aspire to make this a great university.
The URL for the report is: http://measuringup.highereducation.org/ docs/nationalreport_2004.pdf

	B.	Remarks by Provost P. Reichardt	Paul Reichardt stated that he has really enjoyed working with Chancellor Jones. He is very open to learning about things.  With the appointment of Dr. Dorman as interim Vice President for Academic Affairs, he has taken over an organizing role for the Systemwide Academic Council (SAC).  Dr. Dorman has asked the three provosts to fill him in on proposals about new degree programs earlier than we have done in the past.  Reichardt will begin asking the schools and college curriculum council level what is being talked about.  This will make us better informed about what the different campuses are thinking about.  

The overall review of Regents' policy X has been put on hold.  There are two sections that the provosts are going to recommend be taken up immediately by the Regents.   There is one that in policy sets the residency requirements for graduates.  For the baccalaureate you have to have 30 credits in residence and 24 of them have to be upper division.  Because it is in policy there is no individual that can waive a portion of that requirement.  So students with 29 credits and a good story have no place to take their case.  SAC believes that it would make more sense to move it into regulation where these judgments can be made on a case-by-case basis.  The second piece is the assessment section of Article X in Board of Regents policy.  It was instituted in late 90s when the sky was falling.  Nobody does it, so they are recommending that the Regents replace that whole section with a general statement that each MAU will do regular and comprehensive program review and get all the detail out of policy.  

In terms of performance based budgeting we have about one or two more steps at the Provost Council before we allocate $400,000 of performance based money going to the continuation budget of schools and colleges.  

Paul spoke about the summary of faculty reviews and comments that were attached to the agenda.  There is a comment that deans and directors have expressed concerns that some of the committees have large components, even majorities, of Associate Professors.  At Abel’s request the Provost has changed his statement to say to follow what is in the UAF Policy and Procedures that says you must have all tenured members of the discipline involved.  The concern is not just Deans/Directors, but a number of faculty across campus have brought this to his attention.  This should be something the Senate reviews.  Abel indicated that this has been referred to the unit criteria committee.

C.	Steve Smith

Steve Smith spoke on the proposal to consolidate the IT operations at statewide and UAF.   About two and a half years ago, at the request of the President and in the interest of the Board, UA brought in an external review team to look at IT across the system.  They had a number of comments on every MAU and on the system as a whole.   From their point of view there was quite a bit of fragmentation within IT infrastructure support for UAF.  The UAF administration brought back Alex Hills for a more detailed report and review at UAF.   Basically it confirmed many of the observations made at the higher level in the first report.   There was an internal group put together to look at the work of the first two reports and to validate the reports.  To a great extent the internal report validated most of what had been done with the external reports.  At that point the administration began to work to remedy some of the areas.  One was to bring on a Chief Information Officer (CIO) for UAF.  Steve Smith as CIO for the system, he served on that committee.  The committee got up to the point of a small group of finalists.  As that process was going on, an operational review took place across the system.  It looked at each of the different areas--HR, IT, facilities.  That had input from a wide cross section that included faculty, staff, administrators, and students.  Several recommendations for IT are now being working on.  One is bandwidth management.  One idea was a consolidation of network engineering.   Network engineers are very highly priced individuals.  It is a very specialized area to work in.  Can we consolidate that across the system?  As that discussion evolved, we realized that we should look larger than that.  This was a discussion within the IT group that Steve chaired.  The logical place to look for consolidation was between statewide and UAF.  He had a discussion with Provost Reichardt, Vice Chancellor Neumayr, Paul McCarthy, and Richard Machida, who heads up IT.  This discussion was with the previous Chancellor.  There is high interest among the Board of Regents and the President to see where there are opportunities for consolidation like this.  There are other systems that have this kind of infrastructure.  There have been discussions at the Provost Council and at the Chancellor level across the system.  There are some questions about priority of needs.  There will need to be an IT Council that represents UAF composed of faculty, staff, students, and administrators that will set the priorities and needs.  Control of the content and applications is important.  The infrastructure that makes that possible, where there are opportunities to pull those together, that is where you can realize some economies of operation.  

Steve Cysewski stated that at some MAUs the faculty has little say about what can be installed even when it is related to their teaching.  Steve Smith indicated that he sees an opportunity at UAF to provide some modeling of best practices that may be considered across the system.  Currently there is a course management system called Blackboard.  That was a decision made  with faculty input.  He is not sure that Blackboard is the one they will stay with.   There are three things that are important as we move forward with the talks.  1) This is a consolidation merger.  This is not statewide taking over UAF or UAF subsuming statewide.  We look to see where the best places are to put those elements together so they will work.  If this doesn't work, what is the disentanglement process?  A benefit derived to the system is that those at statewide will get a reality dose of what life is like at the campus level.  2) Irregardless of consolidation, UAF needs to do two things.  There is a need to take care of some of the fragmentation that is there and UAF needs to have one place that says this is the responsible person for IT.  

Gary Holton asked how Steve would envision a merger working.  He would see UAF providing IT services to statewide, but would worry about how the reverse would work.  Who would the director report to if we were doing a merger?

Steve indicated that he would treat Butrovich and the statewide support services as another unit within the campus structure.  Within that larger structure there is great expertise.  UAF has excellent network engineers.  In terms of running that, it would have a reporting system that comes up through him.   

Ron Barry stated that the merger at Fish and Game did not work very well.  You lose local control.  

Steve agreed and stated that he would be alarmed if some one didn’t raise that concern.  Consolidation does not mean centralization of everything.  In IT you have to have things that are distributed out because the people who can provide the best support are going to know the idiosyncrasies of the individuals or departments.  What is needed is everyone must meet in one place that says once we agree on the standards then, those are standards.  

Abel asked that the Faculty Senate be kept informed. 

VI	New Business

	A.	Motion to amend Bylaws to add the Faculty Research Oversight Committee, submitted by Administrative Committee 

Michael Hannigan moved the motion to the floor for discussion.  Abel Bult-Ito indicated that the Senate passed a motion in May to establish guidelines for proprietary and classified research.  With the approval of that motion it requires that we add a committee.  With this committee and the addition of the Committee on the Status of Women we have more committee seats than there are senators, so we need to allow senators to work and contribute to more than one committee.   

Jennifer Reynolds stated that it sounds like the purpose of the committee is advisory and makes summaries of information for the Faculty Senate.  Abel indicated that it is an advisory recommendation that the committee will present to the Chancellor.  It will be a public recommendation, which the chancellor will hopefully follow.  

The motion was approved unanimously. 

MOTION:======The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend Section 3, (Article V, Committees, Standing) of the Bylaws pertaining to membership and adding the Faculty Research Oversight Committee. 
[[  ]]  =  DeletionCAPS = Addition
Sect. 3  	(ART V:  Committees)
B.	Membership on standing and permanent committees will be for two years except as noted below with the possibility of re-appointment. The initial appointment or re-appointment is made by the Administrative Committee or as specified in the definition of a Permanent Committee and confirmed by the full Senate.  [[Senators are limited to serving on a maximum of one standing committee at any one time.]]  To provide continuity, terms will be staggered and an initial appointment may be made for one or two years as determined by the Administrative Committee based on need.

	STANDING

	8.	Faculty Research Oversight Committee
	The Faculty Research Oversight Committee shall review all classified and proprietary proposals, grants, and contracts according to the guidelines of the UAF Policy concerning Classified and Proprietary Research and advise the chancellor of their compliance or lack thereof with university policy.  The committee will publish an annual report on the status of classified and proprietary contracts, grants and proposals at UAF to the Faculty Senate. The Faculty Research Oversight Committee will offer changes to the UAF policy as needed through periodic reviews occurring no less than once every 5 years.

	Membership on the committee shall be limited to 9 senators, with no more than 2 members being from the same unit.  A Facilities Security Officer shall be an ex-officio member of the committee.  The committee will also include someone from the Office of Sponsored Research and a designee of the chancellor as ex-officio members.  Committee membership must broadly represent the university community.

	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately
RATIONALE:  	The new UAF Policy Concerning Classified and Proprietary Research calls for the Faculty Senate to establish a Faculty Research Oversight Committee to review all proposals and make recommendations to the chancellor for action.  The policy includes guidelines for the review process.
The number of Faculty Senate committees has increased to a level that may require some of the senators to serve on more than one committee.  Therefore, restrictions on committee membership on standing committees are removed.

*****************

VII	Committee Reports

K.	Ad Hoc Review Committee - Norm Swazo, chair

Norm Swazo stated that in light of the public comment section of the meeting and those comments that were directed to the Senate, he wished to preface his comments with a note about his own prejudice in engaging this and insofar as that has influenced and guided his own deliberation in discussing this issue with the committee.  Norm served as President of the Faculty Senate during the time when we had our accreditation site visit by the Northwest Commission.  At that time he also chaired the working group on Standard 9--Institutional Integrity.  He is well aware of the issues that are involved in institutional integrity relative to what is expected of performance at UAF.   

Norm stated that however we proceed on this difficult issue, the Senate, likewise, is responsible for performing according to its obligations under institutional integrity as decided by standards made available through the Northwest Commission.  That entails that the Senate is responsible for acting according to the Senate constitution, bylaws, and policy and regulations adopted.   

The committee took all of that into account and in engaging this issue realizing that there is significant ambiguity about many issues.  The charge itself raises an issue that conflicts with a number of issues that need to be distinguished.  So the line of argument that is presented in the main body of the document tends to provide some clarification.  It then proceeds to the principle recommendations.  

Recommendations:  

1.	We think that this is a matter that can be properly addressed in terms of a policy that the Senate develops to provide guidance for evaluation of cases such as this one.  

2. 	Recommends that Professor Hannigan continue in his position as President-Elect of the Senate, subject only to the due process provisions for recall.  

Norm indicated that the committee tried to be very careful in their deliberation.  They recognize that there are lots of questions about due process and they tried to engage this.  There are lots of issues in terms of the ambiguity about what is meant when we say accreditation and when we talk about standards of academic performance. In the case of the US and at UAF, it is dependent upon the particular meaning in the context of regional accreditation associations.  What happens outside the United States is decided by accreditation understood differently.  Those kinds of distinctions have to be made and they have to be measured for how they apply in a particular case.  

With all that, in light of the committee's discussion, they realize that they don't have the kind of information that is needed to settle the question one way or the other.  Look at the charge of the committee to investigate the legitimacy of the Ph.D. accordingly to generally accepted academic standards.  For the committee that phase is ambiguous and can be interpreted in three ways: (a) institutional accreditation, (b) program accreditation, or (c) credentials relative to faculty appointment within a discipline.  

The document points out the kind of clarification that is needed to engage that question and interpret that carefully and then arrive at some application.  There are some difficulties in understanding accreditation in the case of the institution in the Caribbean.  

What they are also trying to show in the line of argument is that there is a question of jurisdiction or purview.  Does the Senate really have the authority to act on the evaluation of an individual faculty member's credentials?  This is properly the purview of a unit peer review committee responsible for post-tenure review.  The Senate, consistent with its authority in the constitution and bylaws, deals with issues of policy not the evaluation of a particular faculty member.  As for the question of action on dismissal of a member from its assembly, the Senate has clearly has the prerogative to do so according to its constitution and bylaws.  The problem is there is no provisions for recall set forth in the bylaws, as they currently exist.  So that leaves the Senate able to act only in terms of its parliamentary authority, which is the most current version of Robert's Rules of Order.  

There is the requirement of the Senate acting in forum assembly, a two-thirds majority vote taken, the appropriate evidence set forth, and then the Senate acting on the moral conviction of the charges before it.  In arriving at a situation of moral conviction, what are the charges and what are the standards you are applying to decide the question of moral conviction.  None of that is properly laid out and is something that has to be established through appropriate deliberation.  That is an issue at the level of policy.

Norm restated that there are many questions raised and are they properly the purview of the Faculty Senate insofar as they involve the evaluation of a given faculty member.  Appendix 7 shows all the foreign institutions and degrees that faculty members have here at UAF.  Professor Hannigan's case is the only one that has come before this committee.  There is a need for care with respect to how to proceed.  We are saying distinguish between the Senates responsibility at the level of policy and the unit peer review responsibility for individual faculty review.  

Gary Holton asked if it was relevant that none of the other persons that Norm is aware of are officers of the Senate.  Norm said that if we are talking about institutional integrity, it’s a matter of concern generally and in this case the concern is that Professor Hannigan is President-Elect of the Faculty Senate.  

Jane Weber stated that when Michael Hannigan was going to run for the office of President-Elect he wrote a personal statement and made no mention of a degree.  The ad hoc committee has recommended that he continue in his elected position as president-elect.  I think we should take a vote of confidence.  The question is should Michael Hannigan be President-Elect of the Senate.  It shouldn't be about his degree.  If the Senate wants to look into degrees of many faculty members of this university, then that is one thing.  This is about the President-Elect of the Faculty Senate right now.  

Abel asked if there were any more questions or comments for Norm Swazo.  He thanked the members of the committee.   The question is how do we proceed from here.

Jane Weber made a motion that the Senate adopt a vote of confidence for Michael Hannigan as president-elect.  Rainer Newberry seconded the motion.  

Jane Weber indicated that the 2003-2004 Senate elected him last year and most current members were not members.  

Rainer Newberry stated that the fundamental issues are about appearances and one could argue about ethical business.  The reality is that there is a person here who is suppose to be representing out interests to various administrators whose academic credentials look a little fuzzy.  The question is how comfortable members of the Senate feel about that fuzziness and the ability of that individual to convey to others our sense of importance of academic rigor and rigorous academic requirements.  The question is to what extent do we feel that this individual who has been labeled will be effective or is going to be viewed by higher administrators as the guy with a fuzzy degree.  It is really not about right or wrong it is mostly about should we do it or not.  We need to get this over with and move on.  

Steve Cysewski said we should do the right thing.  Appearances are important, but when you look at issue like this you have to think about fairness.  Are people being treated equally in similar situations?   The motion perplexes him.   If we vote no, does that mean Michael is no longer president-elect?  Rainer indicated that it would be advisory and how we feel about it.  It has no legal binding.  

Jennifer Reynolds said that another way to look at it is if this information had come out last February, would he have been elected.  

Rainer stated that we are not talking about a recall election; we are talking about an advisory vote to the individual in question of whether or not he retains the confidence of the Senate.  

Karen Erickson wasn't sure about the procedure with the motion.  It seems to jump a stage.  Maybe the next motion should be accepting the report.  There has to be some kind of response to the report.  Then, on that basis, probably a motion that was suggested.   Jennifer Reynolds stated that was premature because many had just received the report.    Rainer indicated that it was immaterial to the point at hand.  

Michael Davis in Nome stated that it is a little bit difficult to know who is talking and hard to follow.  He would feel more comfortable about having this discussion face to face.  It's an important issue before us and it seems like it would be better to deliberate knowing who's in the room.  It would be better for people to identify themselves when they speak.  

Abel called the motion.  The vote was 1 in favor, 16 against, and 6 abstentions.  

MOTION:  (Failed)
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to adopt a vote of confidence for Michael Hannigan as president-elect.

********************

	A.	Curricular Affairs - Rainer Newberry 

A report was attached to the agenda.  Rainer had nothing to add to his report.  They will be taking up the issue of what is a legitimate degree.  

B.	Faculty Affairs - Shirish Patil

A report was attached to the agenda.  They will be looking at unfinished business from last year including budget issues, emeritus faculty policy and the policy on distinguished faculty.

C.	Committee on the Status of Women - Jane Weber

A report was attached to the agenda.  Their goal for the year is to maintain a list of women faculty, including research associates with information about their rank and promotion progress, conduct a survey on the status of women at UAF, and determine which university organizations and/or offices deal with issues of particular relevance to women faculty.   

D.	Core Review - Doug Schamel

Doug indicated that they have met only by email.  He has too heavy a course load to be chair this semester, so it maybe Jin Brown for the fall.  

E.	Curriculum Review - Pete Pinney

Pete Pinney not available to give a report.

F.	Developmental Studies - Joe Mason/Cindy Hardy

A report was attached to the agenda.  

G.	Faculty Appeals & Oversight - Paul Layer/M. Pippenger  

Paul Layer indicated they would have co-chairs as well because he can't make it to all Senate meetings.  They are handling various types of appeals, and also administrator reviews.  This year there will be Carol Lewis, Dean of SNRAS and three directors up for review.  They are establishing ad hoc committees.  There will be various faculty surveys and interviews for the administrators being reviewed.  So make sure faculty participate in these review processes. This is an opportunity for faculty to give input to the provost and the administration on the performance of their respective deans/directors. It is critical that faculty participate in this process.

H.	Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement – Lee Haugen

Lee Haugen indicated that they are having difficulty meeting.  They will be considering three issues:  1) the Provost's grade inflation report, 2) online evaluation of faculty, and 3) student assessment of instruction in the rural college.  The committee will meet October 9 for our first meeting and will elect a chair.

I.	Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee - Christa Mulder

A report was attached to the agenda.  

Jennifer Reynolds indicated that their first meeting was organizational.  They have set a regular meeting time, and have co-chairs:  Christa Mulder and Mary Erhlander.

Topics that they will want to work on are international students and the question of good standing.  They have asked the International Student Office for input.

Another topic is course syllabus.  A motion was passed by the Faculty Senate last year that laid out specific content about what both graduate and undergraduate syllabi had to contain.  There has been some question raised by the union about whether it conflicts with academic freedom.  

J.	Unit Criteria - Gary Holton

Gary Holton indicated that the committee has not met yet.  They have old business, which includes a couple of unit criteria and a motion to amend Board of Regents policy regarding the levels of evaluation.  They will also be looking at issue the Provost mentioned earlier--the composition of the unit peer review committees.  They encourage units with existing unit criteria to submit unit criteria.  Abel asked if they still need a member.  There are now five members.  

VIII	Discussion Items 

Abel Bult-Ito asked for any discussion items.

Jennifer Reynolds stated that considering how serious the question was regarding the president-elect and that position, she would like to have a discussion on where do we need to go with this.  Whether we come to any conclusion today, are we going drop it or take another step.   She is not willing to vote on anything substantial until she goes through all the reports.  She does think it is appropriate to talk about a plan.

Rainer Newberry stated that it depends on what Michael Hannigan wants to do.

Michael Hannigan felt that it was best on to strike out.  His transcripts are available for all to see.  He has over 120 credits beyond the bachelor's degree.  What is in question is 15 credits.  Beyond that he has nothing to say.  It is a very slippery slope we are on.  We are now going to start looking at every body's work.  If you do not have good SOI's perhaps you are not a good example to this university.  If you have a syllabus that does not have all the requirements, you are not following policy.  Is that something that we should sanction you for?  And, if you are sitting at the table representing faculty, is that something we should be concerned about?   It's a very slippery slope.  Michael wondered what the motivation was for the attack.  He has 19 years of service at the university.   He was not promoted or tenured based upon the Ph.D.  He came up through the ranks, put his time in, sat on committees and is willing to put his record against anyone else.  

Rainer stated that not understanding the problem is part of the problem.  The academic standard for a Ph.D. involves three things:  a) a comprehensive exam, b) preparing a dissertation, and c) defending that dissertation.  When a Ph.D. shows up that doesn't involve those things….  The question is what constitutes and advanced degree.  

Jane Weber said that the question is whether Michael Hannigan should continue in his elected office as president-elect.  It doesn’t have anything to do with a degree.  The Senate body last April elected him as president-elect.  

Rainer stated that the reason why there is a question about whether or not he is an appropriate person to lead the group is that there is question about whether or not he understands what degree requirements are all about.  

Gary Holton stated that Rainer's point is crucial--it is not about the work.  Degrees don't relate to what work we do or the contribution we have made.  He doesn’t think anybody is questioning Michael's contribution to the university.  What is being questioned is his ability to represent the Faculty Senate having such a degree.  We don't want to get into these questions of evaluating transcripts or work.  

Abel asked if there were any suggestions on how to proceed or whether to proceed.  

Michael asked what standard or example are we dealing with here when we have a faculty member who can send out on a college wide list serve of over 200 people and send it on to state legislators, an incredible diatribe accusing another faculty member of what we are talking about here.  Where is the example in there, where is the ethics?  Can you show a one to one correspondence between the accreditation of the university that those folks went to and their questionable behavior?  What really is the issue, what are we really concern about?  

Rainer stated that the appearance here is that the person who will be our leader in a year doesn't uphold rigorous academic standards.  And doesn't believe in rigorous academic standards.  

Joan Leguard agreed with Rainer that that is what the problem is.  It wouldn't bother her at all if Michael didn't have a Ph.D. at all.  It appears that he is well qualified for his position, in light of the degrees he has, in the work and in his experience.  She had looked at his credentials in the catalog and his Ph.D. was not listed.  The problem is we now have this public embarrassing mess.  Because we have elected someone who, in her opinion, regrettably and unfortunately, filed for a degree that is more embarrassing to have than not to have.  But, as the report said that is a real confusing, messy, dilemma.   What we need to do is recognize that we have a big mess.  The problem is the public perception.   Joan doesn’t think that we should cave in and torment and chastise a good person that we voted for who had a problem, which if we are interested in, could have combated ahead of time, and force him out for that.  I don’t think we should force him out.

Rainer stated that a vote of no confidence is essentially advising the person that they would like the person to resign, that we don't have confidence in them.  

Rainer indicated that clearly what this whole business calls for is a clarification about what constitutes an acceptable degree.  There isn't any regulation at all and would be useful to have so we don't run into this kind of problem in the future.  

Jane Weber agreed and said that perhaps his committee should look into.

Steve Cysewski indicated that he thought it was a question of judgment.  If choosing to get a degree that isn't credible and the degree is central to what we as a university do, shows very poor judgment.  It's more than a question of appearance, it a question of whether he can represent us showing that poor judgment.  What we do is grant degrees to people and the whole Faculty Senate goes through all sorts of effort to make sure what we are credible. The question is whether the degree from St. Kitts and Nevis is credible or not.  

Jane said that she wasn't sure what credible means.  It's an accredited degree.  There are many faculty at this university who have degrees that were not accredited by the United States. How do we have the authority to say what is credible and what is not credible?

Craig said that diploma mills are a problem that is getting worse and that before we go into individual application of a policy that is not yet established, some appropriate body of the university should look into this and develop a list of universities that clearly demonstrate low credibility.  Let someone that is not involved in the issue look into that and get back to us.   

Abel asked if he was asking him to appoint another ad hoc committee.  Craig restated that we do need to recognize that diploma mills are a problem.  And until we have a policy he would not advise going further down this issue.  It's not the position of the Senate at this point to develop a list of diploma mills versus non-diploma mills, but if there are diploma mills out there we need to be aware of them.  

Jane Weber agreed but does know what that has to do with this issue right now.  Joan also agreed that we shouldn’t be doing something without a policy.  Gary Holt indicated that we know what the degree is here; the question is how do we respond to it.  We don't need to research diploma mills to address this issue.  We need to decide, given that we have a president-elect of the Faculty Senate, who has a diploma mill degree, what do we want to do.  

Abel stated for the record that the committee did not address the question of whether this was a diploma mill degree or not.  

IX	Members' Comments/Questions

Tim Stickel, Registrar, stated that although we just started the fall semester, it's never too early to start planning for the spring schedule.  The first proof will be sent back to department September 24.  

X  	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.