The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #115 on April 7,  2003:

RESOLUTION:
==========

BE IT RESOLVED, That the UAF Faculty Senate ratifies the election of Abel Bult-Ito as President-Elect of the UAF Faculty Senate for 2003-2004 by affirmation.

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #115 on April 7,  2003:

RESOLUTION:
=========

WHEREAS, Ron Illingworth has served the UAF Faculty Senate in numerous capacities, often in leadership roles, since 1988, and

WHEREAS, Ron Illingworth, in service to the Faculty Senate, has made truly outstanding contributions to improving the academic quality of the university, and 

WHEREAS, Ron Illingworth has worked tirelessly for ALL UAF students, both urban and rural, through his Faculty Senate representation, and

WHEREAS, Ron Illingworth has helped to make the UAF Faculty Senate a critical element in the retention of students throughout UAF, and

WHEREAS, Ron Illingworth has made major contributions to students' welfare, to faculty's ability to carry out their duties and responsibilities, and to the betterment of UAF as an institution of higher education,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the UAF Faculty Senate recognize Ron Illingworth as Outstanding Senator of the Year for Academic Year 2002-2003.

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #115 on April 7,  2003:

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate, upon recommendation of the Faculty Development Assessment, and Improvement Committee, moves to approve the following Faculty Mentoring Program Policy:

		FACULTY MENTORING PROGRAM POLICY: 

	The Provost, in consultation with the Director of the Office of 
	Faculty Development, and the Faculty Development Assessment, 
	and Improvement Committee, will establish and implement a 
	comprehensive and effective Faculty Mentoring Program for 
	new/untenured faculty members no later than by the fall 2003 
	semester.

	EFFECTIVE:   	Immediately

	RATIONALE:   	This Faculty Mentoring Program Policy will 
		provide a framework for effective mentoring of 
		new/untenured tenure-track faculty members.  Currently, 
		the mentoring of new/untenured faculty members is 
		variable, from non-existent to effective.  Too many 
		new/untenured faculty members appear to receive 
		inadequate mentoring, because guidelines and 
		expectations for mentoring are not well developed.  
		This policy remedies this situation.

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

SUGGESTED GUIDELINES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FACULTY MENTORING PROGRAM POLICY: 

These guidelines are to be evaluated periodically for effectiveness by the Provost, the Director of the Office of Faculty Development, and the Faculty Development Assessment, and Improvement Committee, and adjusted whenever necessary:

1.	New/untenured faculty members will be assigned (a) mentor(s) 
	by their dean/director during their first semester or as soon 
	as possible thereafter.
2.	The Office of Faculty Development hosts a luncheon or other 
	type of gathering for new/untenured faculty and their assigned 
	mentors each fall semester.  Deans/directors are to strongly 
	encourage attendance at this meeting.  Guidelines and 
	expectations for mentoring are discussed then.  A Handbook on 
	Mentoring is given to each new/untenured faculty member.
3.	In addition to the fall semester activities, deans/directors seek 
	out senior faculty volunteer mentors who will be given Service 
	credit on their Workloads to meet at regular intervals with a 
	small group of new/untenured faculty in the spring semester.  
	Small groups of new/untenured faculty will be assigned to each 
	of these mentors depending on their discipline.  Faculty members 
	are encouraged to seek out their mentor(s) of choice.
4.	A template of the Annual Activities Report is added to the 
	Orientation Kit for new/untenured faculty members so they 
	know what to expect at the end of the year.
5.	The senior mentors have examples of Annual Activities Reports 
	and Fourth Year Reviews to show to their groups of 
	new/untenured faculty members.
6.	Both mentors and mentees report on their meetings in their 
	Annual Activities Report.  A section is added to the online Annual 
	Activities Report template for this information.  Also a section 
	be included in the Narrative about mentoring meetings.
7.	A training workshop is offered in fall for all mentors.
8.	The individual and/or group mentor(s) assist(s) the 
	new/untenured faculty members with preparation of the Annual 
	Activities Report up to the fourth year review.
9.	At the dean/director level, a list of new/untenured faculty 
	members and their mentors is maintained.
10.	Untenured faculty members are encouraged to maintain an 
	effective mentoring relationship through their tenure and 
	promotion review.

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #115 on April 7,  2003:

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the administrator review guidelines (passed at Meeting #99, February 5, 2001) to establish a timeline and process for Group "B" administrators and to add Director of the Museum to the Group "B" list.

	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately

	RATIONALE:  	The current administrator evaluation process 
		defined two groups of administrators, Group "A" and 
		Group "B".  Group "A" administrators are being reviewed 
		by the established process.  However the Group "B" review 
		process was not well defined in the original motion.   Under 
		this motion, the process for Group "B" administrators is 
		less involved than for Group "A", and relies on the Faculty 
		Appeals and Oversight committee to run the process. 
		The Director of the Museum is at the same administrative 
		level as other Group "B" administrators but was not 
		included on the original list and should be included in the 
		review process.  

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

Process for Evaluation of Group "B" Administrators

Campus/Program Directors in Group "B" (as listed below) are to be reviewed annually by their immediate Supervisor.  On July 1st, Group "B" Directors shall submit a report/evaluation form to their Supervisor on the previous year's activities/accomplishments and include goals for the upcoming year.  The performance of the Director under review shall be ranked 'Satisfactory' or 'Unsatisfactory'.

On a 4-year cycle the evaluation shall be more extensive.  By October 15 the Campus/Program Director being reviewed will submit a vita, position description, brief self-evaluation and past annual evaluations to the Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee (FAOC), who will conduct the review.  The FAOC may form a subcommittee or subcommittees of 3 or more faculty from FAOC to conduct the review and report back to the committee as a whole.  If appropriate, a staff member from the Campus/Program Director's unit may be added to the subcommittee.

The FAOC shall set procedures for soliciting input from all relevant constituencies on- and off- campus including faculty, staff and students based on the Director's performance during the previous three years.  This will be accomplished through a standard questionnaire completed anonymously and returned to the Ad Hoc Director Review Committee chair and through interviews with a select sample of faculty, staff, students and relevant others, if appropriate, and may include an interview with the administrator being reviewed.

The FAOC will prepare an evaluative summary, and submit its report to the Director's Supervisor by March 1. 

At a date to be determined by the Supervisor of the Director under review, the Supervisor shall meet in joint conference with the Faculty Appeals & Oversight Committee to share his/her preliminary evaluation of the Director under review.  The Supervisor will then complete the review process.

Supervisory Administrators may add additional administrators to this review list (for review in the 2007-2008 cycle), with approval from the Faculty Senate.

Review Cycle:  Every four years beginning with:

2003-2004
		Director, Geophysical Institute
		Director, Interior-Aleutian Campus
		Director, Institute for Northern Engineering
		Director, Cooperative Extension Service
		Director, University of Alaska Museum

2004-2005
		Director, Institute of Arctic Biology
		Director, Bristol Bay Campus
		Director, Tanana Valley Campus
		Director of Fisheries Division, Juneau
		Director, International Arctic Research Center

2005-2006
		Director, Institute of Marine Science
		Director, Chukchi Campus
		Director of Library
		Director, Northwest Campus
		Program Chairman, Marine Advisory Program

2007-2008
		Director, Kuskokwim Campus
		Director, Fishery Industrial Technology Center, Kodiak
		Director, Arctic Region Supercomputer Center
		Director, Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #115 on April 7,  2003:

MOTION REFERRED BACK TO COMMITTEE:
==============================

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve the Unit Criteria for the School of Management.  

	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately
				Upon Chancellor Approval

	RATIONALE: 	The School of Management (SOM) has 
		developed Unit Criteria which set very specific standards 
		for promotion and tenure.  The proposed criteria were 
		submitted by the SOM Dean with approval of a majority 
		of SOM faculty. The Unit Criteria proposal incorporates 
		minor changes in format and wording requested by the
		committee.  The resulting criteria have been found to be
		consistent with UAF guidelines.

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #115 on April 7,  2003:

MOTION REFERRED BACK TO COMMITTEE:
==============================

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate, upon recommendation of the Faculty Affairs Committee, moves to approve the following Spousal Hiring Policy:

	EFFECTIVE:   	Immediately

	RATIONALE:   	Currently, UAF does not have a policy by 
		which all tenure-track faculty candidates and their 
		academic spouse/partner are treated equally across 
		different departments/academic units.  This situation 
		results in ad hoc decisions about hiring decisions of a 
		spouse/partner that vary substantially among units and 
		can be perceived as unfair to the candidate, the 
		spouse/partner, the faculty member seeking a retention 
		offer, or the receiving department/academic unit.  This 
		Spousal Hiring Policy will provide guidelines for the hiring of 
		spouses/partners of new tenure-track faculty members, 
		or those who seek a retention offer, that are transparent, 
		include all parties involved, and treat all candidates and 
		their spouses/partners equally.  To be able to hire and 
		retain the best faculty, UAF also needs to recognize the 
		importance of accommodating dual-career couples.

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #115 on April 7,  2003:

MOTION POSTPONED:
===============

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate, upon recommendation of the Faculty Affairs Committee and the Ad Hoc Committee on Classified Research, moves to approve a UAF Policy on Classified and Proprietary Research as follows.  

	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately

	RATIONALE: 	BOR Policy P10.07.02 specifies that the 
		university may engage in classified research, subject to 
		approval of the Chancellor, but no procedures or guidelines 
		are in place for faculty review and advice on such 
		contracts.  The suggested guidelines provide for oversight 
		and faculty review of classified and proprietary research 
		contracts while honoring ongoing agreements with 
		university constituents.

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

UAF Policy Concerning Classified and Proprietary Research

This statement of policy and procedures addresses the issues of whether and, if so, under what conditions, classified and proprietary research should be conducted at the University. The goal of this policy is to establish a rigorous procedure guaranteeing that any classified or proprietary research be conducted in a responsible and ethical manner consistent with the mission of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.

The conduct of classified research restricts participation of students and limits faculty who work on such research. The results of classified research may not be contained in theses nor used for faculty review or advancement. The University seeks a policy, in principle, of complete disclosure of research activities and sources of funds.
 
At times, freedom of discourse and dissemination might conflict with the greater, immediate needs of society. Research funded by industrial organizations may involve patent applications that require a short delay of publication of a thesis resulting from that research. Faculty members may also wish to act as consultants on classified research projects not involving the use of university facilities.

For reasons such as the above, proposals to conduct classified and proprietary research will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis by the University campus chancellor and the UAF Faculty Research Oversight Committee, with disclosure to the University Faculty Senate, following the guidelines set forth below.

Definitions

Classified Research: Research that has a security classification established by a federal agency.

Various agencies of the federal government may designate some federally sponsored research project, either all or a portion of a particular project, as Top Secret, Secret, or Confidential. Under the terms of this policy, research projects so designated are considered classified.

Proprietary Research: Industrially sponsored proprietary research for which the sponsor requires a delay in publication of the results after submission of the final report.

GUIDELINES ON NEGOTIATING CLASSIFIED AND PROPRIETARY RESEARCH CONTRACTS OR ACTIVITIES 

1.	The University will under no circumstances enter into any agreement or contract for which the direct primary purpose of the research or application of the results is the destruction of human life or harm to humans.  The University will undertake only those contracts and activities that do not compromise the safety and/or well-being of Alaskans and that honor existing agreements with the diverse peoples of Alaska.

2.	The University will make every reasonable effort to keep classified information and activities separate from the normal academic functions of the University.

3.	No thesis that may not be published because it contains federally classified or proprietary information will be accepted toward fulfillment of the requirements for an advanced degree.

4.	For proprietary research, the University will not enter into or renew any contract or accept any grant that prohibits the open publication or dissemination of research results within a reasonable period, typically (and expected to be) no more than 60 days or a period negotiated at the time of the contract initiation.

5.	No University courses given for credit shall be classified in any part.

6.	The University will not accept any contract that cannot be publicly acknowledged. The University will maintain an open record of all classified and proprietary research contracts.

7.	The University will permit the participation of faculty members in classified research of their choice by means of normal consulting arrangements or leaves of absence without pay. Faculty shall not use classified research work in consideration for tenure, promotion, or post-tenure review.

8.	Any unique security costs associated with classified or proprietary research will be borne by the unit within which the contract is sponsored.

9.	The University will supply a Facilities Security Officer to ensure the compliance of all classified agreements with the law.

10.	A Faculty Research Oversight Committee, elected from each unit (college, school and institute) for staggered 2 year terms, and confirmed by the Faculty Senate, shall review all classified and proprietary proposals, grants and contracts to advise the chancellor of their compliance or lack thereof with university policy. The committee shall consist of  members elected from the pool of faculty who are qualified to be members of the senate. Committee membership must broadly represent the university community with no more than 1 member being from the same unit. 

11.	The committee will offer changes to this policy as needed through periodic reviews occurring no less than once every 5 years.

Basic Principles

The UAF mission statement proclaims that the University of Alaska Fairbanks is “the nation’s northernmost Land, Sea and Space Grant university and international research center, [which] advances and disseminates knowledge through creative teaching, research and public service with an emphasis on Alaska, the North and their diverse peoples” (BOR Policy 10.01.03). Through exercising the fulfillment of that mission, the University has enabled relationships with government and industry presenting intellectual and professional opportunities to faculty and students that they would not otherwise have. Concomitant with the open and full pursuit of that mission comes our understanding that the pursuit of knowledge must be tempered by ethical obligations to society; hence our concern with an ethical approach to permitting classified and proprietary research on campus.

The purpose of academic research in the University is the education of students, at all levels, and the generation of new knowledge.  It is important that the University undertake research of high quality and originality.  Ongoing research strengthens the University in a variety of ways:
*	through the stimulation of creative and intellectual 
	investigation by faculty and students,
*	through the discovery and dissemination of new knowledge 
	that benefits society,
*	through participation in a learning process that is unique 
	to research and creative investigation,
*	through transmission of new knowledge to students in 
	the classroom.

Obligation

The university guarantees each member of the academic community the freedom to inquire and affirms the right of each member to access to all available information in his or her field.  A basic function of the University is to carry out research in an open and unrestricted manner with complete freedom to publish or otherwise disseminate the results of its search for knowledge.  The requirements of secrecy and restrictions on freedom to publish, which are inherent in security classification or the restrictions on dissemination which derive from proprietary rights of privately sponsored research, are in direct opposition to this function.

Exercising this function does not, however, prohibit self-imposed restrictions based on the professional ethics of a particular discipline. It also does not prohibit the existence of classified information to reside on campus such as sometimes arises, for instance, in connection with consulting work.  This policy is directed towards maintaining a separation between classified information and the teaching and research functions of the University.

The review process for classified and proprietary research proposals shall be as follows:

	*  The Faculty Oversight Committee shall use a checklist to determine if a project requires formal review.
	*  The Faculty Oversight Committee shall review classified or proprietary proposals and offer recommendations to the chancellor in an expedited fashion.
	*  The Faculty Oversight Committee will publish a report on the status of classified and proprietary contracts, grants and proposals to the UAF Faculty Senate on an annual basis.
	*  The Faculty Oversight Committee should include faculty representation (see above), a person from the Office of Sponsored Research, the Facilities Safety Officer, and a designee of the Chancellor.