The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #109 on May 6, 2002:

RESOLUTION OF RECOGNITION

WHEREAS, The UAF rifle team won its fourth consecutive NCAA title in March as well as an individual NCAA title and record-setting score in small bore by junior Matt Emmons, who finished fifth at the World Cup for shooting in Sydney, Australia, and 

WHEREAS, Freshman Joe Hein won the men's 3x40 smallbore rifle event at the 2002 U.S. Junior Olympic Championships, earning him a place on the USA Shooting National Development Team, and 

WHEREAS, The Nanooks boast ten National Rifle Association All-Americans based on the shooters' scores throughout the season with an emphasis on the NCAA sectionals and their grade point averages, now

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the UAF Faculty Senate congratulates the 2001-2002 Rifle Team as NCAA champion and commends the teams superior performance.

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #109 on May 6, 2002:

MOTION 
======

The UAF Faculty Senate recommends to the Board of Regents that the attached list of individuals be awarded the appropriate UAF degrees pending completion of all University requirements.  [Note:  copy of the list is available in the Governance Office, 312 Signers' Hall.]

	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately

	RATIONALE: 	These degrees are granted upon 
		recommendation of the program faculty, as verified by 
		the appropriate department head.  As the representative 
		governance group of the faculty, we are making that 
		recommendation.

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #109 on May 6, 2002:

MOTION: 
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to adopt the recommendation of the Core Review Committee requiring a syllabus statement for Writing Intensive "W" courses.

	EFFECTIVE:   	Fall semester 2002.

	RATIONALE:   	With the high turnover of faculty, there 
		appears to be some confusion about what constitutes a 
		"W" course.  The inclusion of this type of statement will 
		guide the faculty in formulating the course, and inform 
		students not only that this is a "W" course, but the 
		requirements of such a course.

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

Syllabus Statement Regarding the Writing-Intensive (W) Requirement

This statement, or a statement similar to it, MUST appear in the syllabus of each "W" course.  Courses failing to provide this information jeopardize their continuing status as "W" courses.

Below is an example paragraph that teachers could include on their syllabi when instructing Writing-Intensive (W) courses.  The paragraph includes the key elements of the Writing-Intensive requirement.  

This course is designated as Writing-Intensive (W).  This designation means that the "W" is evident in the course number on the syllabus (e.g., English 313W).  The designation applies to upper-division courses and means that a majority of the graded work in the course will be derived from writing activities.  Here are the general guidelines for the writing expected in this course:

   *  Students will complete an ungraded writing sample on or near the first day of class to help the teacher assess writing ability and general competence.
   *  Students will receive comments from the teacher and/or peers on drafts of written work.  In other words, students will work through a draft-and-redraft process so that they can apply feedback and become more effective writers.  If students complete a major research project, the teacher will supervise the students’ writing in stages.
   *  Students will meet individually with the teacher at least once during the term to discuss their writing.

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #109 on May 6, 2002:

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the Graduate Academic Regulations (pages 36 and 37 of the 2001-2002 Catalog) and How to Earn a Degree section (page 39 of the 2001-2002 Catalog) as follows:

[[  ]] = Deletions
CAPS = Additions

(page 36):

ACADEMIC STANDARDS

[[Graduate Scholastic Standing]]

[[Your UAF academic record will reflect the GPA for all courses taken after the bachelor's degree (or last degree at UAF).  However, your scholastic standing in the graduate program is determined by the GPA of the courses identified on your Advancement to Candidacy (including repeats).  If you haven't advanced to candidacy, your scholastic standing is determined by the GPA of all courses taken since the bachelor's or last degree.]]

(page 37):

Repeating Courses

All grades (original and retakes) for a course completed at UAF will be shown on the permanent record.  [[For scholastic standing calculations, the GPA calculation for graduate students includes all courses listed on your advancement of candidacy (including repeats and undergraduate courses approved for your program).  If you haven't been advanced to candidacy yet, your GPA will include all courses (including repeats) you have taken since your admission to graduate study.]]  ONLY THE LAST GRADE EARNED FOR A COURSE IS USED IN COMPUTING YOUR GPA UNLESS THE COURSE IS ONE THAT CAN BE REPEATED FOR CREDIT.

(page 39):

GENERAL UNIVERSITY REQUIREMENTS

Grade Point Average and Grade Requirements

You must have a cumulative GPA of 3.0 (B) for good standing and IN COURSES IDENTIFIED ON YOUR ADVANCEMENT TO CANDIDACY FORM to graduate.  You must earn an A or B grade (no P grades) in 400-level courses; a C grade will be accepted in 600-level courses [[provided you maintain a B average.  For the purposes of graduate good standing and meeting degree requirements, all grades, including those generated from retaking a course, are included in the GPA.]]  FOR THE PURPOSES OF SATISFYING DEGREE REQUIREMENTS PROVIDED YOU REMAIN IN GOOD STANDING.

	EFFECTIVE:  Immediately Upon Chancellor approval

	RATIONALE:  The dual concepts of 'graduate scholastic 
		standing' and 'good standing' are redundant and 
		confusing.  Though 'graduate scholastic standing' is 
		defined in the existing catalog, it has no consequences.  
		Eliminating 'graduate scholastic standing' will produce 
		one concept of 'good standing' as for undergraduates, 
		but with a higher GPA standard (3.0 vs. 2.0).  The manner 
		in which retaken courses will contribute to the GPA is 
		hereby clarified and will match the situation for 
		undergraduates.  Confusion about how the GPA is 
		calculated before advancement to candidacy is hereby 
		eliminated.  The catalog will be slightly shorter.

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #109 on May 6, 2002:

MOTION
======

The UAF Faculty Senate, upon recommendation of the Faculty Affairs Committee, moves to amend the Appeals Policy for Academic Decisions Other Than Assignment of Grades as follows:

   	EFFECTIVE:   	Immediately

	RATIONALE:   	The presence on the committee of a tenure-
		track faculty member from the academic unit in which 
		the decision was made creates a perception of conflict 
		of interest.  By making this member a non-voting 
		member, conflict of interest issues are avoided.  In 
		addition, this faculty member will be able to provide the 
		voting members with clarifications and information 
		relevant to the academic unit negating the necessity 
		of a "program's monitor."  In addition, the presence of 
		the department chair of the program in which the decision 
		was made as the program's monitor of all proceedings 
		also creates a perception of conflict of interest.  This 
		section has been deleted because the campus judicial 
		officer or his/her designee, who serves as a nonvoting 
		facilitator, serves in an advisory role to help preserve 
		consistent hearing protocol and records and, therefore, 
		additional oversight by the department chair is 
		unnecessary.  Procedures for the submission of written 
		materials that shall be considered by the committee have 
		been added for clarification.

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

CAPS  =  Additions
[[   ]]  =  Deletions

APPEALS POLICY FOR ACADEMIC DECISIONS
Other Than Assignment of Grades

I.  Introduction

The University of Alaska is committed to the ideal of academic freedom and so recognizes that academic decisions (i.e., non-admission to or dismissal from any UAF program) are a faculty responsibility. Therefore, the University administration shall not unduly influence or affect the review of academic decisions that are a faculty responsibility.

The following procedures are designed to provide a means for students to seek review of academic decisions alleged to be arbitrary and capricious. Before taking formal action, a student must attempt to resolve the issue informally. A student who files a written request for review under the following procedures shall be expected to abide by the final disposition of the review, as provided below, and may not seek further review of the matter under any other procedure within the university.

II.  Definitions

A.  As used in the schedule for review of academic decisions, a class day is any day of scheduled instruction, excluding Saturday and Sunday, included on the academic calendar in effect at the time of a review. Final examination periods are counted as class days.

B.  "Department Chair" for the purposes of this policy denotes the administrative head of the academic unit offering the course (e.g., head, chair or coordinator of an academic department, or division coordinator or program chair if the faculty member is in the College of Rural Alaska).

C.  The "dean/director" is the administrative head of the college or school offering the course or program from which the academic decision or action arises. For students at extended campuses the director of the campus may substitute for the dean/director of the unit offering the course or program.

D.  The next regular semester is the fall or spring semester following that in which the disputed academic decision was made.  For example, it would be the fall semester for a final grade issued for a course completed during the previous spring semester or summer session.  The spring semester is the next regular semester for an academic decision made during the previous fall semester.

III.  Procedures

A.  A student wishing to appeal an academic decision other than a grade assignment must first request an informal review of the decision.

1.  Notification must be received by the Provost within 15 days from the first day of instruction of the semester in which the decision takes effect.

2.  There may be extenuating circumstances when the deadlines cannot be met due to illness, mail disruption, or other situations over which the student may have no control. In such a case, upon request from the student, the Provost, after review of supporting documentation provided by the student, may adjust the deadlines accordingly. An extension of the deadline will be limited to one semester but every effort should be made to complete the appeal process within the current semester.

3.  The Provost will request the appropriate department chair to conduct an informal review of the decision. The Department chair will determine whether the original decision should be overturned or changed in any way. The department chair will submit his/her recommendation to the provost through the dean/director within 10 days. In the event that the department chair is directly involved, the provost can ask the dean/director to conduct an informal review and submit his/her recommendations directly to him.

4. The Provost will consult with the student on the department chair's recommendation. If the student does not find that recommendation acceptable, he/she may request the Provost to conduct a formal review.

B.  The formal review will be conducted as follows.

1.  This formal review is initiated by the student through a signed, written request to the Provost.

a.  The student's request for formal review may be submitted using university forms specifically designed for this purpose and available from the Office of the Provost.

b.  By submitting a request for a review, the student acknowledges that no additional mechanisms exist within the university for the formal review of the decision, and that the university's administration including the college dean/director can not influence or affect the outcome of the formal review.

c.  The request for a formal review must be received no later than 10 days after the student has learned the outcome of the informal review (IIIA4).

d.  The request must detail the basis for the allegation that the decision was made on a basis other than sound professional judgment based upon standard academic policies, procedures and practices.

2.  The Provost will appoint a 5 member review committee composed of the following:

a.  One NON-VOTING tenure-track faculty member from the academic unit in which the decision was made. THIS INDIVIDUAL SHALL SERVE IN AN ADVISORY ROLE. THIS FACULTY MEMBER SHALL NOT BE THE INDIVIDUAL(S) AGAINST WHOM THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED.

b. Two tenure-track faculty members from within the college or school but outside of the unit in which the decision was made. If available, one of these two members will be selected from the members of the UAF Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee.

c. One tenure-track faculty member from outside the college or school in which the decision was made. If available, this member is to be selected from the members of the UAF Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee.

d. The fifth member to be appointed by the Provost will be a non-voting student representative.

e. The campus judicial officer or his/her designee shall serve as a nonvoting facilitator for appeals hearings. This individual shall serve in an advisory role to help preserve consistent hearing protocol and records.

[[f. The department chair of the program in which the decision was made will act as the program's monitor of all proceedings.]]

3.  The committee must schedule a mutually agreeable date, time and location for the appeal hearing within 10 working days of receipt of the student's formal request.

a.  During this and subsequent meetings, all parties involved shall protect the confidentiality of the matter according to the provisions of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and any other applicable federal, state or university policies.

B. TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE COMMITTEE, ALL WRITTEN MATERIALS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE HEARING FACILITATOR NO LATER THAN 48 HOURS BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED APPEALS HEARING. TO GIVE ALL INTERESTED PARTIES A CHANCE TO SUBMIT WRITTEN MATERIALS, AT LEAST THREE BUSINESS DAYS SHALL ELAPSE BETWEEN THE TIME THE MEETING IS ANNOUNCED AND THE START OF THE MEETING.  NEW WRITTEN MATERIALS PRESENTED AFTER THE 48-HOUR DEADLINE OR PRESENTED DURING THE MEETING WILL ONLY BE CONSIDERED BY AGREEMENT OF ALL VOTING COMMITTEE MEMBERS.  THESE PROCEDURES RELATED TO WRITTEN MATERIALS ALSO APPLY TO ALL SUBSEQUENT MEETINGS.

[[b.]] C.  Throughout the proceedings, the committee will encourage a mutually agreeable resolution.

 [[c.]] D. The mandatory first item of business at this meeting is for the committee to rule on the validity of the student's request. Grounds for dismissal of the request for review are:

1) The student has not provided sufficient reason in support of the allegation that the academic decision was arbitrary and capricious.

2) This is not the first properly prepared request for appeal.

3) The request was not made within the policy deadlines.

[[d.]] E.  In the event that the committee votes to dismiss the request, a written notice of dismissal must be forwarded to the student, instructor, department chair, dean/director and provost within five days of the decision, and will state clearly the reasoning for the dismissal of the request.

4.  Acceptance for consideration of the student's request will result in the following:

a.  A request for, and receipt of, a formal written response from the program department chair to the student's allegation.

b.  A second meeting scheduled to meet within 10 days of the decision to review the request.

1) The student and the department chair or a representative of the program will be invited to attend the meeting.

2) The meeting will be closed to outside participation, and neither the student nor the instructor or department chair may be accompanied by an advocate or representative. Other matters of format will be announced in advance.

3) The proceedings will be tape recorded and the tapes will be stored with the campus Judicial Officer.

4) The meeting must be informal, non-confrontational and fact-finding, where both the student and instructor or department chair may provide additional relevant and useful information and can provide clarification of facts for materials previously submitted.

5. The final decision of the committee will be made in private by a majority vote.

a.  Actions which the committee can take if it accepts the student's allegation may include, but are not limited to, the following:

1) direct the program instructor or department chair to reconsider the decision,

2) provide a final alternative decision.

b.  The academic decision review committee proceedings will result in the preparation of written findings and conclusions.

c.  A formal, written report of the decision must be forwarded to the student, instructor, program/department chair, dean and Provost within five days of the meeting. The Provost shall then be responsible for communicating the decision to other relevant offices (e.g., Admissions, Registrar).

d.  The decision of the committee is final.

C.  The entire process must be completed by the end of the semester in which the decision first took effect.

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #109 on May 6, 2002:

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate, upon recommendation of the Faculty Affairs Committee, moves to amend the Grade Appeals Policy as follows:

	EFFECTIVE:    	Immediately

	RATIONALE:   	The presence on the grade appeals committee 
		of a tenure-track faculty member from the academic unit 
		in which the course was offered creates a perception of 
		conflict of interest.  By making this member a non-voting 
		member, conflict of interest issues are avoided.  In 
		addition, this faculty member will be able to provide the 
		voting members with clarifications and information 
		relevant to the academic unit against which the appeal is 
		directed.

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

CAPS =  Additions
[[  ]]  =  Deletions

GRADE APPEALS POLICY

I.	Introduction

The University of Alaska is committed to the ideal of academic freedom and so recognizes that the assignment of grades is a faculty responsibility.  Therefore, the University administration shall not influence or affect an assigned grade or the review of an assigned grade.

The following procedures are designed to provide a means for students to seek review of final course grades alleged to be arbitrary and capricious.  Before taking formal action, a student must attempt to resolve the issue informally with the instructor of the course.  A student who files  a written request for review under the following procedures shall be expected to abide by the final disposition of the review, as provided below, and may not seek further review of the matter under any other procedure within the university.

II.	Definitions

A.	A "grade" refers to final letter grades A, B, C, D, F, and Pass. The I (incomplete) designates a temporary grade, for one year not a final grade, so it is not subject to appeal until it becomes final.

B.	For the purpose of this procedure, "arbitrary and capricious" grading means:

1.	The assignment of a course grade to a student on some basis other than performance in the course,
 	or

2.	The assignment of a course grade to a student by resorting to standards different from those which were applied to other students in that course,
 	or

3.	The assignment of a course grade by a substantial, unreasonable and unannounced departure from the instructor's previously articulated standards.

C.	"Grading errors" denotes errors in the calculation of grades rather than errors in judgment.

D.	As used in the schedule for review of academic decisions, a class day is any day of scheduled instruction, excluding Saturday and Sunday, included on the academic calendar in effect at the time of a review.   Final examination periods are counted as class days.

E.	"Department [[head]] CHAIR" for the purposes of this policy denotes the administrative head of the academic unit offering the course (e.g., head, chair or coordinator of an academic department, or the campus director if the faculty member is in the College of Rural Alaska).

F.	The "dean/director" is the administrative head of the college or school offering the course or program from which the academic decision or action arises.  For students at extended campuses the director of the campus may substitute for the dean/director of the unit offering the course or program.

G.	"Final grade" for the purposes of this policy is the grade assigned for a course upon its completion.

H.	A "grading error" is a mathematical miscalculation of a final grade or an inaccurate recording of the final grade.

I.	The next regular semester is the fall or spring semester following that in which the disputed academic decision was made.  For example, it would be the fall semester for a final grade issued for a course completed during the previous spring semester or summer session.  The spring semester is the next regular semester for an academic decision made during the previous fall semester.

III.	Procedures

A.	Errors by an instructor in determining and recording a grade or by the university staff in transcribing the grade are sources of error that can be readily corrected through the student's prompt attention following the normal change of grade procedure.

1.	It is a student's obligation to notify the instructor of any possible error immediately by the most direct means available.  If this is through an oral conversation and/or the issue is not immediately resolved, it is the student's responsibility to provide the instructor with a signed, written request for review of the grade, with a copy to the unit department [[head]] CHAIR and the dean of the college or school in which the course was offered.

2.	Notification must be received by the instructor and/or department [[head]] CHAIR within 15 days from the first day of instruction of the next regular semester (i.e., fall semester for grade issued at the end of the previous spring semester or summer session; spring semester for grade issued at the end of the previous fall semester).

3.	The instructor is responsible for notifying the student in writing of his or her final judgment concerning the grade in question within 5 days of receipt of the request, and for promptly submitting the appropriate change of grade form to the [[Director of Admissions and Records]] REGISTRAR'S OFFICE  if an error occurred.

4.	If the student does not receive a response from the instructor or the unit department [[head]] CHAIR by the required deadline, the student must seek the assistance of the dean of the college or school in which the course was offered.

5.	If the instructor is no longer an employee of the university or is otherwise unavailable, the student must bring the matter to the attention of the unit department [[head]] CHAIR who will make every effort to contact the instructor by the 15th class day of the next regular semester.

a.	If the instructor can not be contacted but course records are available, the department [[head]] CHAIR will effect resolution within 5 class days of notification by the student.  The department [[head]] CHAIR may correct a grading error through the regular change of grade process on behalf of the instructor.

b.	If the instructor can not be contacted and course records are either unavailable or indecisive, the student may request a review following the procedure outlined below.

c.	If the instructor can be contacted and elects to participate, then a constructive participation is to be welcomed by the review committee.  The procedures of Paragraph III.A.5.a. or  Paragraph III.A.5.b. will be instituted if the instructor withdraws from participation.

6.	There may be extenuating circumstances when the deadlines cannot be met due to illness, mail disruption, or other situations over which the student may have no control.  In such a case, upon request from the student, the dean of students, after review of supporting documentation provided by the student, may recommend to the grade appeals committee that the deadlines be adjusted accordingly.  An extension of the deadline will be limited to one semester but every effort should be made to complete the appeal process within the current semester.

B.	If no such error occurred, the remaining option is by review for alleged arbitrary and capricious grading, or for instances where the course instructor is unavailable and satisfaction is not forthcoming from the appropriate department [[head]] CHAIR.

1.	This review is initiated by the student through a signed, written request to the department [[head]] CHAIR with a copy to the dean of the college or school in which the course was offered.
 
a.	The student's request for review may be submitted using university forms specifically designed for this purpose and available at the [[Admissions and Records]] REGISTRAR'S Office.

b.	By submitting a request for a review, the student acknowledges that no additional mechanisms exist within the university for the review of the grade, and that the university's administration can not influence or affect the outcome of the review.

c.	The request for a review must be received no later than 20 days after the first day of instruction in the next regular semester (i.e., fall semester for grade issued at the end of the previous spring semester or summer session; spring semester for grade issued at the end of the previous fall semester) or within 5 days of receipt of notification of the process by the dean/director of the college or school in which the course was offered.

d.	The request must detail the basis for the allegation that a grade was improper and the result of arbitrary and capricious grading and must present the relevant evidence.

2.	It is the responsibility of the department [[head]] CHAIR to formally notify both the instructor who issued the grade and the dean of the unit's college or school that a request for a review of grade has been received.

3.	If the instructor of the course is also the department [[head]] CHAIR, the Dean of the College will designate another department [[head]] CHAIR within the college to act as the department's representative for all proceedings.  If the instructor of the course is also the Dean of the College, the Provost will designate another Dean within the University to act as the college's monitor of all proceedings.

4.	The dean will appoint a 5 member review committee composed of the following:

a.	One NON-VOTING tenure-track faculty member from the academic unit in which the course was offered (other than the instructor of the course). THIS INDIVIDUAL SHALL SERVE IN AN ADVISORY ROLE.

b.	Two tenure-track faculty members from within the college or school but outside of the unit in which the course was offered.  If available, one of these two members will be selected from the members of the UAF Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee.

c.	One tenure track faculty member from outside the college or school in which the course was offered.  If available, this member is to be selected from the members of the UAF Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee.

d.	The fifth member to be appointed by the dean will be a non-voting student representative.

e.	The campus judicial officer or his/her designee shall serve as a nonvoting facilitator for grade appeals hearings. This individual shall serve in an advisory role to help preserve consistent hearing protocol and records.

5.	The committee must schedule a mutually agreeable date, time and location for the appeal hearing within 10 working days of receipt of the student's request.

a.	During this and subsequent meetings, all parties involved shall protect the confidentiality of the matter according to the provisions of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and any other applicable federal, state or university policies.

b.	Throughout the proceedings, the committee will encourage a mutually agreeable resolution.

c.	The mandatory first item of business at this meeting is for the committee to rule on the validity of the student's request.  Grounds for dismissal of the request for review are:

1)	This is not the first properly prepared request for appeal of the particular grade.

2)	The actions of the instructor do not constitute arbitrary and capricious grading, as defined herein.

3)	The request was not made within the policy deadlines.

4)	The student has not taken prior action to resolve the grade conflict with the instructor, as described under section III, A.

d.	In the event that the committee votes to dismiss the request, a written notice of dismissal must be forwarded to the student, instructor, department [[head]] CHAIR and dean within five days of the decision, and will state clearly the reasoning for the dismissal of the request.

6.	Acceptance for consideration of the student's request will result in the following:

a.	A request for and receipt of a formal response from the instructor to the student's allegation.

b.	A second meeting scheduled to meet within 10 days of the decision to review the request.

1)	The student and instructor will be invited to attend the meeting.

2)	The meeting will be closed to outside participation, and neither the student nor instructor may be accompanied by an advocate or representative. Other matters of format will be announced in advance.

3)	The proceedings will be tape recorded and the tapes will be stored with the campus Judicial Officer.

4)	The meeting must be informal, non-confrontational and fact-finding, where both the student and instructor may provide additional relevant and useful information and can provide clarification of facts for materials previously submitted.

7.	The final decision of the committee will be made in private by a majority vote.

a.	Actions which the committee can take if it accepts the student's allegation of arbitrary and capricious grading must be directed towards a fair and just resolution, and may include, but are not limited to, the following:

1)	Direct the instructor to grade again the student's work under the supervision of the department [[head]] CHAIR,

2)	Direct the instructor to administer a new final examination and/or paper in the course,

3)	Direct a change of the student's registration status (i.e., withdrawn, audit, dropped) in the course.

b.	The academic decision review committee proceedings will result in the preparation of written findings and conclusions. Conclusions will result in one of the following:

1)	The request for a grade change is denied.

2)	The request for a grade change is upheld; the review committee requests the course instructor to change the grade; and the course instructor changes the grade in accordance with MAU rules and procedures.

3)	The request for a grade change is upheld; the course instructor is either unavailable to change the grade or refuses to, and the review committee directs the dean/ director to initiate the process specified by MAU rules and procedures to change the grade to that specified by the review committee.

c.	A formal, written report of the decision must be forwarded to the student, instructor, department [[head]] CHAIR, dean and Director of Admissions and Records within five days of the meeting.

			d.	The decision of the committee is final.

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #109 on May 6, 2002:

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the UAF Regulation for Emeritus Status as follows:

[[  ]]  =  Deletions
CAPS =  Additions

Emeritus Status

A. 	A full-time faculty member who has already attained the rank of full professor and who has retired after a minimum of ten years at the University of Alaska immediately prior to retirement is eligible for consideration as an emeritus professor.  Nominations for the emeritus professor must originate with the faculty.  The process may be initiated by *any three faculty members, one of whom must belong to the retiree's primary academic unit, for review by the appropriate dean.  The dean, in consultation with the retiree's primary academic unit, will make recommendations to the Provost who will then forward his/her recommendations to the Chancellor.  The Chancellor's [[recommendations are to be forwarded to the President for approval]] DECISION IS FINAL AND NON-REVIEWABLE.

B. 	In exceptional circumstances, the CHANCELLOR, OR IN THE CASE OF STATEWIDE ADMINISTRATION EMPLOYEES,  THE president, may confer emeritus status to other meritorious employees who have provided A MINIMUM OF TEN (10) YEARS OF [[long and]] faithful service of high quality to the institution.  Recommendations [[should]] WILL proceed along the appropriate administrative channels to the CHANCELLOR OR president.

C. 	The Board of Regents may confer emeritus status upon a retiring President of the University.

D.	Privileges available to emeritus employees include the following:

	1.      Listing in the appropriate university directory and
		catalog.
	2.	Invitations to major university functions.
	3.	Mailing notices of campus functions and social gathering.
	4.	Use of library, gymnasium, and food facilities ON THE SAME
		BASIS AS ACTIVE EMPLOYEES IN THEIR CATEGORY.
	5.	Access to laboratories, office space at the discretion of
		the dean or director, research and/or electronic
		communication facilities (where such access is available
		at no charge to the university and does not displace other
		faculty and/or students).
	6.	Free parking permit.
	7.	Receipt of a permanent identification card.
	8.	Waiver of tuition for courses in which they themselves
		are enrolled.

E.    Upon appointment to emeritus status a retiring employee shall be
designated by the proper title Emeritus/Emerita.

* nominations must have the support of three faculty

	EFFECTIVE:   	Immediately
				Upon Chancellor's Signature

	RATIONALE:  	These changes will bring the UAF Regulations in 
		line with Regents Policy & Regulations.

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #109 on May 6, 2002:

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

WHEREAS, the University of Alaska Fairbanks aspires to serve as the premiere higher educational center for Alaska Natives, and

WHEREAS, the University of Alaska Fairbanks aspires to serve as a model to demonstrate how cultural diversity strengthens a university and society, and

WHEREAS, these strategic plan goals include proactive pursuit of opportunities to incorporate indigenous culture into higher education, and

WHEREAS, these strategic plan goals include celebrating Alaska Native cultural activities at UAF to encourage and promote cross-cultural understanding and learning opportunities, and,

WHEREAS, the Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Alaska Native Education (CACNE) has submitted its recommendations on the UAF 2001 Draft Master Plan in a position statement dated 25 March 2002, and

WHEREAS, CACNE "takes a strong stand in keeping the area between the Natural Science Building and the UAF Museum as an open space…[to be] dedicated to culturally relevant symbols representing Alaska's First Nations: the Athabascans, Tlingit, Haida, Tsimshian, Eyak, Inupiaq, Yupiaq/Cupiaq, Yupiget, Alutiiq, Sugpiaq and Unangan/Unangus", and

WHEREAS, "Each Alaska Native group would have the opportunity to determine what form the representation [of cultural symbols] would be", and

WHEREAS, CACNE proposes further "that UAF consider adding Native Alaskan artwork and symbols to as many buildings and outdoor spaces on campus as possible",

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the UAF Faculty Senate endorses the proposal of the Chancellor’s Advisory Committee on Alaska Native Education and recommends that the university administration implement the CACNE proposal as part of the UAF 2001 Master Plan.  

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #109 on May 6, 2002:

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to adopt the revised "UAF Faculty Appointment and Evaluation Policies" and the "UAF Regulations for the Appointment and Evaluation of Faculty".

	EFFECTIVE:  "UAF Faculty Appointment & Evaluation Policies"  - 
			Upon Board of Regents Approval

			"UAF Regulations for the Appointment & Evaluation 
			of Faculty"  - Upon Chancellor's Approval

	RATIONALE:  	Changes in collective bargaining agreements, 
		accreditation standards, and inadvertent deletions from 
		earlier versions of said policies and regulation require a 
		comprehensive revision herein presented for Senate 
		approval.  

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

Draft "UAF Faculty Appointment and Evaluation Policies" - http://www.uaf.edu/uafgov/faculty/facpol2002.rtf

Draft "UAF Regulations for the Appointment and Evaluation of Faculty" - http://www.uaf.edu/uafgov/faculty/facreg2002.rtf

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #109 on May 6, 2002:

MOTION:
=====

The UAF Faculty Senate, upon recommendation of the Curricular Affairs Committee,  moves to add a "Pre-major" admissions status to the baccalaureate degree and to change the Baccalaureate Degree catalog description on page 11 of the current catalog as follows:

[[   ]] = Deletions
CAPS = Additions

ADMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Baccalaureate Degree (Bachelor's Degree)

D.	IF YOU DO NOT MEET THE BACCALAUREATE DEGREE ENTRANCE REQUIREMENTS, YOU WILL BE PLACED INTO A PRE-MAJOR DEGREE STATUS IN THE DISCIPLINE TO WHICH YOU HAVE APPLIED.  WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF YOUR PRE-MAJOR ADVISOR, YOU MAY LATER ENTER A BACCALAUREATE DEGREE PROGRAM AFTER EARNING, WITH A C GRADE (2.0) AVERAGE OR HIGHER, 14 CREDITS AT THE 100 LEVEL OR ABOVE, OF WHICH NINE CREDITS MUST SATISFY GENERAL BACCALAUREATE DEGREE REQUIREMENTS.  YOUR PRE-MAJOR STATUS WILL BE REVIEWED ANNUALLY.

	EFFECTIVE:  	Fall 2003

RATIONALE:  	The pre-major status connects the student to the degree to which they applied and requires the creation of pre-major advisors who will provide the advising for these students.  Additionally, many students currently admitted to the Associate of Arts degree are, in fact, baccalaureate degree seeking students and applied for admissions as such.  Because they did not meet admissions status for the baccalaureate degree, they were admitted into an associate program without their prior knowledge or concurrence.  Upon discovering this, some students have opted not to attend UAF but to enroll as pre-major students at another UA school.  Students admitted to pre-major status will receive advising from specifically identified and trained pre-major advisors identified from each school and college.  They will receive discipline-specific advising as well as recommendations to help them meet the baccalaureate admissions requirements.  Student pre-major status will be reviewed annually.

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #109 on May 6, 2002:

MOTION
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to endorse the 2002-2003 committee membership as attached.

	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately

	RATIONALE:  	New Senate members' preference for 
		committee selection were reviewed and weighted 
		against membership distribution from schools and 
		colleges.

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

2002 -2003 UAF FACULTY SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

STANDING COMMITTEES

Curricular Affairs
	David Barnes, CSEM (03)
	Carol Barnhardt, SOEd. (03)
	James Gladden, CLA (03)
	Greg Goering, SOM (04)
	Michael Hannigan, CRA (04)
	Gary Holton, CLA (03)--chair, Curriculum Review
	*Ron Illingworth, CRA (03)--chair
	Rainer Newberry, CSEM (04)
	William Schneider, CLA (04)
	Eduard Zilberkant, CLA (04)

Faculty Affairs
	Mark Box, CLA (04)
	Abel Bult, CSEM (03)
	Knut Kielland, CSEM (03)
	Joan Leguard, CLA (03)
	Bret Luick, CRA/ACE (04)
	Jenifer McBeath, SALRM (04)
	*Peter McRoy, SFOS (04)--chair
	Dan Odess, CLA (04)
	Shirish Patil, SME (04)
	Bret Simmons, SOM (04)

PERMANENT COMMITTEES

Core Review (Elected)
	John Heaton, Social Sciences, CLA (03)
	vacant, English, CLA (03)
	*Doug Schamel, Education (04)--convener
	Jin Brown, Communication, CLA (04)
	Jill Faudree, Math, CSEM (04)
	Rainer Newberry, CSEM, Sciences (04) 
	Mary Goodwin, Humanities, CLA (04)
	Paul McCarthy, Library
	Undergraduate Student

Developmental Studies Committee (Elected)
	Barbara Adams, Interior-Aleutians, CRA (03)
	Nancy Ayagarak, Kuskokwim, CRA (02)
	Patty Baldwin, RSS 
	John Bruder, Bristol Bay, CRA (03)
	Richard Carr, English, CLA (03)
	John Creed, Chukchi, CRA (04)
	Math, CSEM (04)
	Cindy Hardy, TVC (04)
	Ron Illingworth, Devel. Studies, CRA (03)
	Gary Laursen, Sciences (03)
	Wanda Martin, Advising Center 
	Joe Mason, Northwest, CRA (04)
	*Jane Weber, TVC (04)--convener

Faculty Appeals & Oversight Committee (Elected)
	Gang Chen, SME (04)
	Larry Duffy, CSEM (03)
	Carol Gold, CLA (04)
	Brian Himelbloom, SFOS (04)
	Glenn Juday, SALRM (03)
	Oscar Kawagley, SOEd. (04)
	Santanu Khataniar, SME (03)
	Paul Layer, CSEM (04)
	Jerry Lipka, SOEd. (03)
	Julie Riley, CRA/ACE (03)
	Michael Schuldiner, CLA (03)
	Peter Stortz, CRA/ACE (03)
	SALRM (04)
	SFOS (03)
	SOM (02)
	SOM (03)

Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement 
	Abel Bult, CSEM (03)
	Gerald Berman, CLA (04)
	George Charles, CLA (03)
	Linda Curda, CRA (04)
	Paul McCarthy, CSEM (04)
	*Deborah McLean-Nelson, SOEd. (04)--convener
	Joy Morrison, CLA (04)
	Channon Price, CSEM 
	Tom Robinson, SOM  
	Ann Wilson, CRA (03)
	Shunpu Zhang, CSEM (04)

Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee 
	Ed Bueler, CSEM (03)
	Abhijit Dandekar, SME (04)
	Mary Ehrlander, CLA (04)
	Rolf Gradinger, SFOS (04)
	Meriam Karlsson, SALRM (04)
	Zhongo (John) Ma, CSEM (04)
	Pamela McWherter, CLA (04)
	Christa Mulder, CSEM (04)
	Maribeth Murray, CLA (03)
	*Colin Read, SOM (03)--convener
	  Ex-Officio:  	Joe Kan, Graduate Dean.
			Paul McCarthy, Library Director
			University Registrar
			Graduate Student
			Graduate Student

OTHER:

UAF Governance Coordinating Committee
	Godwin Chukwu, President
	Pete Pinney, President-Elect

UAF Faculty Alliance Representatives
	Godwin Chukwu, President
	Pete Pinney, President-Elect
	Larry Duffy, Past-President

*Chair or convener

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #109 on May 6, 2002:

MOTION:
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to adopt the following calendar for 
its 2002-2003 meetings.

	EFFECTIVE:   	Immediately

	RATIONALE:  	Meetings have to be scheduled and the Wood 
		Center Carol Brown Ballroom reserved well in advance.

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

				UAF FACULTY SENATE
					2002-2003
				  Calendar of Meetings

Mtg. # 	Date    	Day     	Time    	Type

110      	9/23/02 	Monday	1:00 p.m.	audioconference

111      	10/28/02 	Monday	1:00 p.m.	face-to-face 

112      	12/9/02 	Monday	1:00 p.m.	audioconference

113      	2/3/03	Monday	1:00 p.m.	audioconference

114      	3/3/03	Monday	1:00 p.m.	face-to-face

115      	4/7/03	Monday	1:00 p.m.	audioconference

116      	5/5/03	Monday	1:00 p.m.	face-to-face

Location:  Wood Center Carol Brown Ballroom 

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #109 on May 6, 2002:

MOTION
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to authorize the Administrative Committee to act on behalf of the Senate on all matters within its purview which may arise until the Senate resumes deliberations in the Fall of 2002.  Senators will be kept informed of the Administrative Committee's meetings and will be encouraged to attend and participate in these meetings.

	EFFECTIVE:   	May 6, 2002

	RATIONALE: 	This motion will allow the Administrative 
		Committee to act on behalf of the Senate so that 
		necessary work can be accomplished and will also allow 
		Senators their rights to participate in the governance 
		process.

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #109 on May 6, 2002:

RESOLUTION  OF  APPRECIATION

FOR

Norman K. Swazo

WHEREAS, Norm Swazo has served the UAF Faculty Senate in a manner deserving of the UAF Faculty Senate's greatest admiration and respect; and 

Whereas, Norm Swazo has served as Senator to the UAF Faculty Senate from 1995-97, and 1999-2002; and 

Whereas, Norm Swazo has served as a member of the Faculty Affairs Committee from 1995-97 and 1999; and 

WHEREAS, Norm Swazo has served as Chair of the Administrative Committee and as President-Elect of the UAF Faculty Senate for 2000-2001; and 

WHEREAS, Norm Swazo has served as a member of the UAF Governance Coordinating Committee from 2000-2002; and 

WHEREAS, Norm Swazo has served as a member of the UA Faculty Alliance, as a member of the UA Systemwide Governance Council from 2000-2002; and 

Whereas, Norm Swazo has served as President of the UAF Faculty Senate from 2001-2002; and 

WHEREAS, Norm Swazo has served as Chair of the UAF Standard Nine (Integrity) Accreditation Working Group; and 

WHEREAS, The UAF Faculty Senate wishes to acknowledge the outstanding service rendered the faculty and the University by the work of Norm Swazo as he concludes his term as president; now 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the UAF Faculty Senate acknowledges the many contributions of Norm Swazo  and expresses its appreciation for his exemplary service.

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #109 on May 6, 2002:

MOTION:
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to suspend approval of all classified research projects normally reviewed by the UAF Office of Sponsored Programs and undertaken by UAF faculty in UAF-owned or UAF-operated facilities until such time as: 

(1)	the Provost, acting on the written recommendations of the UAF Vice Provost for Research, the Director of the Office of Research Integrity, and the Committee on Research Integrity, certifies in writing to the UAF Faculty Senate that the university is compliant with the National Industrial Security Program (NISP) regulations, including any modifications to these regulations adopted by the Department of Defense following from the draft document, "Mandatory Procedures for Research and Technology Protection Within the DOD"; and,
(2)	the UAF Faculty Senate approves adoption of such regulations and related institutional procedures governing and enabling the responsible conduct of classified research.

Exclusion:  This action excludes proprietary research and private consulting undertaken by UAF faculty according to extant institutional policy and procedures.

	EFFECTIVE:   Immediately

RATIONALE:  Federal regulations governing classified research carried out in U.S. institutions of higher education are set forth in the National Industrial Security Program (NISP) manual distributed by the U.S. Department of Defense.  An institution of higher education may not conduct classified research unless the regulations set forth in this manual are adopted and implemented at such institutions.  UAF, as a research university, is an institution of higher education.  Therefore, UAF is obligated to demonstrate that it is compliant with these regulations.  As of the date of this motion, UAF is not compliant with NISP and, in fact, according to the Vice Provost for Research, has recently failed a security review.

	Moreover, according to a report issued in The Chronicle of Higher Education (April 24, 2002; http://chronicle.com/daily/2002/04/ 2002042401n.htm), the U.S. Department of Defense “is considering new restrictions on research sponsored by the military, including the possibility of imposing criminal sanctions against individuals who publish unclassified studies involving basic research…The proposed rules, detailed in a 110-page document titled ‘Mandatory Procedures for Research and Technology Protection Within the DOD’ are under review within the military.” (bold letter-emphasis mine)  The new procedures as drafted “potentially [include] all unclassified science and technology”, with required “authorization to disclose [unclassified] research findings or results”.  “Sharing such information without clearance could lead to administrative sanctions or criminal penalties, even for work defined as fundamental research”.  It should be noted that the proposed inclusion of “fundamental research” in the draft regulations revises the current exemption for fundamental research allowed under ITAR and EAR.  In light of this latest regulatory development, UAF needs to proceed cautiously and avoid committing itself to Department of Defense funded projects as well as classified research projects that may impose additional restrictions on the conduct of open science and subject faculty to additional criminal and administrative sanctions governing unclassified fundamental research.

The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #109 on May 6, 2002:

MOTION REFERED BACK TO COMMITTEE:
=============================

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to adopt the following statement (procedure) on Censure of Administrators.  

	EFFECTIVE:   Immediately

	RATIONALE:   At present there is no policy or procedure 
		statement in force and one is needed

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

CENSURE OF ADMINISTRATORS

1.      The review (in the broadest sense) of the performance of administrators is an important complementary activity to the review of faculty.  Both groups contribute to the advancement of the University when they carry out their respective responsibilities effectively, and either can seriously interfere with the proper functioning of the University as a whole when they perform ineffectively.

2.      The various peer reviews of faculty, including the mentoring of untenured faculty, promotion, and tenure review, and post-tenure review as well as continuing, in-depth contact with students equip UAF faculty with a unique and comprehensive understanding of the general health of the University and its actual progress in meeting its stated goals.

3.      In a system of shared governance, the administrative function includes a critical catalytic role which, when performed well, results in the accomplishments of academic units surpassing the sum of individual faculty effort.

4.      UAF faculty are in a unique position to offer insights on the effectiveness of academic administrators of particular and campus-wide programs at UAF. They can readily see whether their efforts to teach, conduct research, and provide professional services are enhanced, not affected, or compromised by academic administrators.

5.      Faculty input into periodic reviews of academic administrators is provided for, although the system for accomplishing reviews is relatively new and lacking in a record of experience upon which to make judgments.

6.      As responsible members of the academic community, UAF faculty have an inherent responsibility, when circumstances indicate that academic programs and the health of the University are being impacted negatively by the behavior and decisions of State-wide administrators and their immediate staffs, the UAF chancellor and provost and their immediate staffs, and deans and directors and their immediate staffs to initiate the passage of a vote of no-confidence or censure.

7.      When, in the considered opinion of the majority of the Faculty Senate, an administrative decision or series of decisions are seriously harmful to the health and future of the University, the Senate may pass a vote of no-confidence or censure of the administrator or administrators making and carrying out such harmful decisions.  Such a petition to the Senate should include precise delineation and documentation of the problem and the attempts undertaken to mediate and resolve the problem before asking the Senate to pass a motion of censure.

8.      After the submission of a petition to the Senate, the Senate should appoint an Ad hoc committee to investigate the allegations and make recommendations for a final attempt for resolving the situation before turning the matter over to the full Faculty Senate for discussion and passage of censure.