FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
	Sheri Layral
	312 Signers' Hall
	474-7964   FYSENAT

A G E N D A
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #104
Monday, October 29, 2001
1:30 p.m. - 4:00 p.m.
Wood Center, Carol Brown Ballroom

1:30	I	Call to Order – Norm Swazo   				  5 Min.
		A.	Roll Call
		B.	Approval of Minutes to Meeting #103
		C.	Adoption of Agenda

1:35	II	Status of Chancellor's Office Actions 		  5 Min.
		A.	Motions Approved:  
1.	Motion to amend the Baccalaureate 
Core Curriculum including the 
Philosophy Statement.  
		B.	Motions Pending:  none

1:40	III	A.	Remarks by Chancellor  M. Lind   		10 Min.
		B.	Remarks by Provost P. Reichardt		  5 Min.

1:55	IV	Governance Reports					15 Min.
	A.	ASUAF -D. Miller / GSO - 		    		  
	B.	Staff Council - S. McCrea 				  
	C.	President's Report - N. Swazo     			  
	D.	President-Elect's Comments - G. Chukwu

2:10	V	New Business						25 Min.
	A.	Motion to approve the UAF Academic Development 
Plan, submitted by the Administrative Committee  
(Attachment 104/1)
B.	Motion to eliminate the credit hour restriction of 
correspondence study work for certificates, associate 
and AAS degrees, and bachelor's degrees, submitted 
by Curricular Affairs (Attachment 104/2)
	C.	Motion to amend the policy on Course Restrictions for 
graduate degrees, submitted by Graduate Academic & 
Advisory Committee (Attachment 104/3)
	D.	Resolution on the search for the UA Vice President for 
Research, submitted by Faculty Affairs (Attachment 104/4)
E.	Motion to recommend that the UA Board of Regents' amend 
	the UA non-discrimination statement, submitted by the 
	Administrative Committee (Attachment 104/5)

2:35	VI	Discussion Items   					
	A.	UAF Master Plan (http://www.uaf.edu/mastplan/) 10 Min.
		Executive Summary (Attachment 104/6)
	B.	Classified Research at UAF (Attachment 104/7)  45 Min.

3:30		***BREAK***						10 Min

3:40	VII	Committee Reports 					10 Min.
	A.	Curricular Affairs - R. Illingworth (Attachment 104/8)
	B.	Faculty Affairs - P. McRoy (Attachment 104/9)
	C.	Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee – H. Eicken
			(Attachment 104/10)
	D.	Core Review - J. Brown
	E.	Curriculum Review - P. Pinney
	F.	Developmental Studies - J. Weber (Handout)
	G.	Faculty Appeals & Oversight - J. Moessner 
(Attachment 104/11)
	H.	Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement – 
D. McLean-Nelson (Attachment 104/12)

3:50	VIII	Public Comments/Questions 				  5 Min.

3:55	IX	Members' Comments/Questions			  5 Min.

4:00	X	Adjournment

ATTACHMENT 104/1
UAF Faculty Senate #104
OCTOBER 29, 2001
SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE

MOTION:  
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve the UAF Academic Development Plan developed in 2001 with the recommendation that the plan be formally reviewed by the UAF Administration and the UAF Faculty Senate during spring semester 2004.

EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately

RATIONALE:  	This motion provides the formal approval 
of the plan by the Senate and sets a timeline for its 
implementation and evaluation for prospective revision 
as needed.

Note:  See the UAF Academic Development Plan at the Provost's web site at:   http://www.uaf.edu/provost/academic_plan/index.html

ATTACHMENT 104/2
UAF Faculty Senate #104
OCTOBER 29, 2001
SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to eliminate the credit hour restriction limiting the use of correspondence study work for certificates, associate and AAS degrees, and bachelor's degrees (page 26, 2001-2002 UAF catalog).

CAPS  =     Additions
[[   ]]  =      Deletions

GENERAL UNIVERSITY REQUIREMENTS

[[No more than 15 semester hours of correspondence study work are accepted toward an associate degree, 32 semester hours are accepted toward a bachelor's degree.]]  If you want to use correspondence study credits from a school other than UAF to satisfy degree requirements, you must have the approval of those courses by the dean of the school or college from which you will graduate; otherwise, you take the risk of not having the courses accepted.  

EFFECTIVE:  	Fall 2002

RATIONALE:  	In a time of technological change in the area of 
instructional delivery, the existing policy has become 
outdated and no longer reflective of our existing 
capabilities in this area of distance delivery.  UAF 
departments are developing and delivering courses and 
entire programs wholly by distance delivery and UAF 
has an extensive history of delivering courses to rural 
students via distance delivery.  It no longer seems 
reasonable or appropriate to single out one distance 
delivery mode for these restrictions.

ATTACHMENT 104/3
UAF Faculty Senate #104
OCTOBER 29, 2001
SUBMITTED BY GRADUATE ACADEMIC & ADVISORY COMMITTEE

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the policy on Course Restrictions (page 40, 2001-2002 UAF catalog) for graduate degrees as follows:

CAPS  =     Additions
[[   ]]  =      Deletions

Course Restrictions 

You may not use [[correspondence courses,]] credit by examination, audited courses, 500-level courses or courses taken under the credit/no credit option to fulfill the basic course requirements of any degree program.  No more than 12 credits of special topics courses (693 or 695) or individual study (697) may be used toward a graduate degree.  Requests for exceptions to the limit must be approved by the dean of the Graduate School.

EFFECTIVE:  	Fall 2002

RATIONALE:  	The existing policy on course restrictions has 
not kept pace with technological innovations in distance 
delivery of courses, most of which have been implemented 
at UAF.  At the same time, current policy (i.e., that 
governing transfer of credits from other institutions as 
well as instruments of oversight for graduate courses) 
ensures that distance-delivered courses meet the 
standards of UAF's graduate degree programs.  The 
reference to "correspondence courses" as one particular, 
ill-defined form of distance-delivered courses is deemed 
superfluous in this context.

ATTACHMENT 104/4
UAF Faculty Senate #104
OCTOBER 29, 2001
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY AFFAIRS

RESOLUTION:
=========

WHEREAS, The UAF Faculty Senate notes that the recent search process 
by the statewide administration for the candidates for Vice 
President for Research did not proceed according to normal practices of university governance; and

WHEREAS, In particular, the UAF Faculty Senate expresses concern that 
Mr. Craig Dorman was not interviewed on campus as a candidate 
for this position; and

WHEREAS, The UAF Faculty Senate recognizes that he did come to 
campus as a candidate for the IARC director position, but faculty 
outside that area are unlikely to have met him then and he was 
not interviewed as a vice president finalist; and

WHEREAS, This seems particularly problematic since there has been 
faculty concern over the need for, and the scope of, the position 
of the Vice President for Research; now

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the UAF Faculty Senate sends 
notice to President Hamilton that such practices are considered 
outside the norm for university governance; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the UAF Faculty Senate considers this an 
unfortunate gap in the process and reminds the President that 
such administrators are here on behalf of the faculty and 
students, both of whom have every intent of reviewing, 
criticizing, commenting, evaluating, and passing judgment on 
their actions.

ATTACHMENT 104/5
UAF Faculty Senate #104
OCTOBER 29, 2001
SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE

MOTION: 
======

The UAF Faculty Senate recommends that the University of Alaska Board of Regents' amend the UA Nondiscrimination Statement (P04.01.020) as follows:

CAPS  = 	Additions to the statement 

Nondiscrimination Statement				P04.01.020

In accordance with federal and state laws, illegal discrimination in employment against any individual because of race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, veteran status, physical or mental disability, marital status or changes in marital status, pregnancy or parenthood, or SEXUAL ORIENTATION is prohibited.  Decisions affecting an individual’s employment will be based on the individual’s qualifications, abilities and performance, as appropriate.

EFFECTIVE:  	The UAF Faculty Senate requests that first 
discussion of the amendment be placed on the Human 
Resources Committee agenda at the March BOR meeting.

RATIONALE:  	Under the current policy, students, staff and 
faculty could be discriminated against because of their 
sexual orientation.  As an institution of higher learning, 
the University of Alaska should be setting an example to 
the rest of the state in terms of recognizing and 
respecting all of the diverse peoples of Alaska.  By adding 
sexual orientation to the policy, the university is further 
sending a message to all students, staff, and faculty that 
this is a place where they are welcome, accepted, and 
protected against discrimination. 

ATTACHMENT 104/6
UAF Faculty Senate #104
OCTOBER 29, 2001
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY AFFAIRS

Campus Master Plan - 2001

1.	Executive Summary

Introduction 

This campus master plan is designed to guide and shape the physical environment of the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) main campus and to present a model for planning throughout UAF's branch campuses and remote facilities. It advances UAF's distinctive mission as the nation's northernmost land, sea, and space grant university and international research center.  It enhances UAF's role in advancing and disseminating knowledge through creative teaching, research, and public service with
an emphasis on Alaska, the North and their diverse peoples.  It is an integral part of broader planning efforts at UAF that include the university's academic plan, strategic plan, and accreditation self-study. 

The charge of the current master plan is to reestablish a common vision for the campus that is practical, achievable, and tied to a clear implementation schedule.  It has been developed from the outset through an inclusive and participatory planning process that lays the groundwork for positive and tangible change in the campus environment. 

The plan builds on UAF's unique location in the far North and the special challenges and opportunities this presents. Coping with extreme cold, snow and ice, and darkness are obvious challenges.  But the Fairbanks campus enjoys a beautiful location on "The Hill" that makes it prominent in the region and provides expansive vistas of the Tanana Valley and Alaska Range.  The boreal forest surrounds the campus, providing a dramatic natural backdrop to the campus architecture and a valued setting for research facilities and trails. The brilliant light of summer contrasts dramatically with the subdued light of winter.  Both the university and broader Fairbanks communities enjoy the small scale of the campus, the close proximity of bike and ski trails, and views of the distant Alaska Range from office and dormitory windows. 

The Fairbanks campus consists of nearly 2,250 acres of boreal forest, hillsides, lakes, and fields.  It has a distinctive cultural history as Troth Yeddh, an Athabascan Indian meeting place.  Today, people of Interior Alaska look to UAF as a cornerstone of community life in a myriad of ways: intellectual culture, athletics, fine arts, public service, research, and
economic development.  The campus shares with the Fairbanks community a distinctive Alaskan spirit of independence and self-reliance; that spirit opens doors for innovation and opportunity in all aspects of the university's work. This plan builds on that spirit and the university's distinctive geographic location in fulfilling the university's mission
in the areas of teaching, research, and public service. 

Vision 

The campus master plan strives to create a collegial environment that supports the institutional mission of UAF.  It envisions an attractive, well-ordered, imageable, and pedestrian-centered campus that takes advantage of its unique northern location and the extraordinary resources of its natural and community setting.  The plan creates an order for the campus to be reflected in all its interrelated parts--in the continuity of its landscape and architecture, the streamlining of vehicular circulation and parking, the enhancement of the campus' natural environment, and the concentration of development in core areas to create a more integrated and efficient campus. 

Purpose of the Master Plan 

The campus master plan is the essential guide for growth and change of the physical environment on the Fairbanks campus.  We expect it to be used by the Chancellor's Cabinet, the Master Planning Committee, and others in developing and evaluating capital funding requests, designing and constructing new facilities, and enhancing the existing built environment. 

The plan is a living document.  It results from a dynamic process of addressing both existing and anticipated conditions, desires, programs, and space demands.  The intent is to gather and reassess data regularly and to refine design criteria to accommodate change, provide permanence, and allow the university to evolve with grace. 

We anticipate that the campus master plan committee will review the plan at least annually, and that regular updates will be made every five years. It is expected that a full review of the master plan will be required in no more than ten years.  Future decisions can, of course, vary from the direction of this plan.  However, they should be made with careful evaluation so that the implications of variance can be fully understood regarding the vision that this master plan represents. 

Key goals 

The following are the key goals of the campus master plan, designed to achieve the vision of a well-ordered, attractive, and imageable campus. Virtually all are interrelated; achieving goals in one area may be dependent on success in others. 

Strengthen the collegial atmosphere of the built environment through development within the acknowledged core areas of campus, design of building projects that strengthen program identities and adjacencies, and the establishment of complementary architectural and landscape features. 

Improve community access to the UAF campus by building parking garages adjacent to key community-use facilities, enhancing existing parking and shuttle service, and improving wayfinding. 

Become a pedestrian-centered campus by creating a safe, well-lit, and attractive pedestrian way along Yukon Drive, limiting parking and vehicular traffic in the interior of campus, and improving walkways and trails through enhanced design and lighting. 

Simplify and improve vehicular circulation by completing an
attractively-designed campus loop road encompassing West Ridge and Lower Campus, strengthening the campus shuttle system, and improving key intersections, entrances, and parking areas. 

Highlight the natural assets of the campus and sense of place by bringing the boreal forest back into campus, protecting and enhancing key open space and landscaped areas, preserving viewsheds, and making the forest accessible to the campus community for low-impact recreation. 

ATTACHMENT 104/7
UAF Faculty Senate #104
OCTOBER 29, 2001
SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE

Discussion Guide Handout
UAF Faculty Senate Discussion on Classified Research at UAF
Meeting Number 104, Wood Center Ballroom, 29 October 2001

Norm Swazo, Senate President

Assignment to Senators:  Each Senator is assigned to contribute both oral and written comments that will assist the Faculty Affairs Committee in clarifying and engaging the relevant issues and in providing content to the policy decision parameters noted below.
**********************************************************************

          Policy Alternatives		 		Prospective  Outcomes

A1: Maintain Status Quo: No CR	O1		O2		O3…On

A2:  Limited CR opportunities	O1		O2		O3…On

A3: Unrestricted CR opportunities	O1		O2		O3…On

A4: Other					O1		O2		O3…On

Identify:	Relevant stakeholders in CR
					CR Policy decision-makers
					Relevant CR goals/objectives
					Expected direct benefits of CR
					Expected direct costs of CR
					Probable externalities (positive, negative) of CR

Applicable rational bases to policy choice:

•	Technical (outcomes as measured for plausible effectiveness of the proposed policy)
•	Economic (outcomes as measured for plausible efficiency – cost/benefit ratio—of the policy proposed)
•	Legal (outcomes as they relate to extant public law, institutional rules and procedures, etc., that may govern/enable/constrain/restrain the proposed research)
•	Social (outcomes as they relate to maintaining or improving valued social institutions of the university, the local community, the state of Alaska, the nation, the international community)
•	Ethical (outcomes as they relate to moral principles relevant to the identified domain of prospective areas of research)

(N.B.  The above are modified ideas deriving from William N. Dunn, Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction, 2nd Edition (Prentice-Hall, 1994), Chapter 7, “Recommending Policy Actions”, pp. 273-275.  This is a text used in PHIL 476 Ethics and Public Policy I, Fall 2001, Instructor: Swazo.)

ATTACHMENT 104/8
UAF Faculty Senate #104
OCTOBER 29, 2001
SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS

Curricular Affairs Committee Meeting Report

The Curricular Affairs committee held audioconferenced meetings on 3 & 17 Oct, 2001 from 3:30-4:45 pm.  Members present included Mike Hannigan, Wanda Martin, Peter Pinney, Eduard Zilberkant, Carol Barnhardt, James Gladden, Gary Holton, David Woodall, Britt Arneson, and Ron Illingworth. 

All meetings will be audioconferenced as well as face to face as some members of the committee are from outside Fairbanks.

At our first meeting, we welcomed Britt Arneson, the student representative.  The committee was without student representation all Spring semester last year.  The committee believes that it is very important to have student representation as it allows us to hear, directly, student perspectives on issues which often directly affect students.

The committee addressed the following issues:

1.	The committee approved the elimination of the limitations for use of correspondence courses towards degrees and certificates and forwarded a motion to the Faculty Senate.

2.	The committee also addressed a request from the Admissions Office to clarify the definition of a "C" grade as it relates to transfer acceptance.  The committee affirmed the existing policy that a "C" is a "C"; that is, any "C" grade (C-, C, or C+) is a "C" grade.

3.	The committee asked Nancy Dix, Admissions Office, to confirm that UAF policy relative to transfer from one UA MAU to another as reflected in the catalog, accurately reflects BOR policy and where it differs, to suggest changes to this committee.

4.	The committee discussed a proposal from the Foreign Language Department to change the "bonus credit" option as currently reflected in the catalog under Local Advanced Placement Credit so that it would be applicable to 400-level courses.  We will be submitting a motion at the next Senate meeting to address this change.

5.	The committee discussed proposed changes to the AAS degree to bring it into compliance with Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges accreditation standards.  Final action will be taken at our next meeting.

6.	The committee discussed an issue related to double-counting of core courses brought by CSEM relative to courses used to complete minors.  After some discussion, the committee determined that it would be appropriate to forward this issue to the Core Review Committee for their deliberation.

The next meeting of the Curricular Affairs Committee is scheduled for 7 November, 2001.

Respectfully submitted
Ronald D. Illingworth, Chair 
Curricular Affairs Committee

ATTACHMENT 104/9
UAF Faculty Senate #104
OCTOBER 29, 2001
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY AFFAIRS

Faculty Affairs Meeting Report

Date:  5 October 2001,  Begin:  1300 hrs,  Runcorn Conference Room

Committee Members Present:  M. Davis, J. Leguard, C.P. McRoy (chair)
Visitors:  Judith Segall, ASUAF

This was a short meeting to assign the following items to committee members:

1.	Classified Research (McRoy/Smith)
2.	Regulation on Research Misconduct (McRoy)
3.	UAF Budget process (McRoy/ Smith)
4.	Revision of Emeritus Status Policy (McBeath)
5.	Spouse Appointment Policy (Davis)
6.	Regulation 03.01.01; Faculty, Staff & Student Governance (all)
Review of policy from Staff Alliance
7.	Early Tenure (Leguard)
8.	Research VP Interview (Leguard)

----------------------------------------

Date:  16 October 2001, Begin:  1500 hrs, Runcorn Conference Room

Committee Members Present:  M. Davis, J. Leguard, J. McBeath, SALARM, C.P. McRoy (chair) R. Smith (Ex-Officio), GI
Visitors:  N. Swazo, D. Porter

Old Business:

1.	Classified Research 

From Dr. Swazo:  A discussion on a Prospective UAF Policy on Classified Research will be scheduled for the next Senate meeting. Participants will include Senators,  GI Director Roger Smith and Vice Provost for Research Ted DeLaca (if he is available).

2.  Regulation on Research Misconduct

From Dr. Swazo:  A draft document in now in review in the university counsel’s office.  It will be available for review before the end of the semester.

3.  UAF Budget Process

"Dr. Porter attended the meeting to express concerns over the budget initiative process now underway throughout the University.  He asked whether promises made by Statewide administrators for using increases in funds over the last two years were discussed through established faculty governance processes, either before or after the commitments were made.  He reported that, based on discussions at a recent AAUP conference on faculty governance, major initiatives that impact academic curriculum, academic programs and the hiring of new academic faculty should be discussed through faculty governance processes.  Maintaining and enhancing academic programs cannot be moved forward without timely and regular inputs for the academic professionals. Oversight of curriculum and the content of academic programs is at the core of matters reserved to faculty governance.  Dr. Porter was concerned that faculty governance processes may have been overlooked or abbreviated in the formulation of the initiatives from the Statewide administration in the last two years.  He urged the Faculty Affairs Committee to insure that effective faculty governance oversight is maintained in these core areas of faculty concern.

4.  Revision of Emeritus Status Policy

The Faculty Affairs Committee finds that the BOR revision fails to recognize research faculty and their directors. A revision is in process.

5.  Spouse Appointment Policy

There is no known policy regarding spouse appointments. Does UAF need a policy?  State of Alaska ethics statues apparently require that spouses working on a grant must be on an equal status. Faculty Affairs is investigating this issue.

6.  Regulation regarding governance
Review of this policy has been delayed. We will have it for the Senate in November.

7.  Search process for statewide VP for Research
A resolution for the Faculty Senate from Faculty Affairs is included in the agenda.  

New Business

1.  Review of the Master Plan

A short discussion of the new campus Master Plan occurred. Comments noted that the premise of the plan “ to make UAF a pedestrian campus” is probably unrealistic for the Fairbanks location. The Committee recommends that the plan be reviewed by faculty and the Senate before it goes any further.

ATTACHMENT 104/10
UAF Faculty Senate #104
OCTOBER 29, 2001
SUBMITTED BY GRADUATE ACADEMIC & ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee (GAAC) Meeting Report

October 2, 2001, 10-11 am, Chancellor's conference room, Signers' Hall 330

Present: Gayle Gregory, Joe Kan, Elke Richmond, Dennis Stephens, Colin Read, Susan Henrichs, Chuen-Sen Lin, Sandra Bond, Ed Bueler, Eric Rexstad, Norm Swazo, George Minassian, Hajo Eicken
Guests: Bob Perkins

1. Election of Chair:  Introduction of members & guests present; Hajo Eicken elected chair of GAAC.

2. Discussion of modalities of committee work (mode of communication, delegation of tasks, goals for the year)

3. Review criteria for graduate scholastic/academic standing:  
Upon request by the Graduate School, the committee reviewed the criteria for graduate scholastic, academic and good standing. Given several issues or contradictions in the catalogue concerning the definition of these terms and current policy, Ed Bueler and Eric Rexstad took on the task of further researching the issue until the next meeting.

4. Course restrictions for graduate studies:
The current policy on course restrictions for graduate studies was discussed, in particular as pertaining to the restriction of correspondence courses.  It was concluded that due to the fuzzy definition of correspondence courses and recent developments in on-line delivery (mostly implemented at UAF) warrant a removal of this restriction.  The chair will prepare a motion to the UAF Faculty Senate for discussion at the next meeting.

5. Identification of on-line courses in catalog:
Joe Kan asked that the GAAC consider specific identification of online/distance-delivered courses in the catalog.  A discussion among committee members resulted in numerous questions being raised concerning on-line courses and related issues.  The consensus was that due to varying modes of on-line/classroom delivery, this issue may not require changes in policy but is deserving of further study.  Norm Swazo recommended getting in touch with Mike Sfraga of statewide to learn more about status of on-line delivery and on-line catalog of courses.  Chair will follow up on this.

6. Trial course requests:  MIN 694, Application of Artificial Neural Networks, will be further evaluated by Chuen-Sen Lin.  BIOL 694, Endangered Species Management, will be further evaluated by Eric Rexstad 

7. Next meeting: Oct 16, 2001, 10-11am SIH 330

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee (GAAC) Meeting Report
October 16, 2001, 10-11 am, Chancellor's conference room, Signers' Hall 330

Present: Gayle Gregory, Joe Kan, Elke Richmond, Dennis Stephens, Colin Read, Chuen-Sen Lin, Sandra Bond, Ed Bueler, Eric Rexstad, Norm Swazo, George Minassian, Maribeth Murray, Hajo Eicken
Guests: Mary Ehrlander, Larry Duffy

I. Old Business

A.  Trial course requests:
BIOL 694 Endangered Species Management (rapporteur:  Eric Rexstad): The course addresses issues not part of other current courses (focus on biological aspects of management).  Dennis Stephens (Library Collection Representative) pointed out that the need for bibliographic materials for newly developed trial courses was often overlooked or glossed over (need to follow-up on).  The committee unanimously decided to approve the trial course request.

MIN 694 Application of Artificial Neural Networks (rapporteur: Chuen-Sen Lin):  Concerns raised by the rapporteur (and solicited comments), include prerequisites for course, identifiable applications to mining engineering, potential overlap with courses offered in mathematics/computer science department, were addressed satisfactorily by the course proponent/instructor.  The GAAC decided unanimously to approve this trial course request.

B.  Motion to refine graduate degree program course restrictions: Discussion of draft motion, with changes suggested regarding specific wording of catalogue alterations.  The committee unanimously approved that the motion to be forwarded to the Senate. 

It was noted by Colin Read that currently transfer of graduate credits within the UA System is limited to ≤50% of total credits.  The committee may want to follow up on this issue as it may not reflect current developments in the distance-delivery sector.

C.  Revision of graduate scholastic and academic standing criteria:  Ed Bueler and Eric Rexstad presented summary findings.  Contradictions in the computation of GPA's as well as the lack of an adequate definition (or specific reference) to scholastic standing suggest that the latter be removed from the catalog.  Pending full verification (contact Eric Muehling, Public Relations, regarding occurrence of terms in electronic version of catalog) the issue was deferred to the next meeting.

D.  Mike Sfraga of statewide had been contacted with regards to on-line delivery of courses within the UA System.  After a summary of this information (including pointer to online.alaska.edu as the gateway to online courses), it was decided to invite him to the next GAAC meeting for a more in-depth presentation/discussion (representation of GAAC in relevant committee?). 

II. New Business
Research of online delivery issues revealed a number of areas that deserve further attention.  For example, should the committee get involved with approval of courses that transition from classroom delivery to mixed or pure online delivery?  While the GAAC is committed to avoid micromanagement, the question of quality control was raised.  The latter is an issue outside of GAAC's purview, but it is unclear whether current means of quality control (student evaluations, etc.) as well as mechanisms for course approval adequately reflect changes in technology and course delivery.  Further discussion of this and related issues during next meeting.

ATTACHMENT 104/11
UAF Faculty Senate #104
OCTOBER 29, 2001
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY APPEALS & OVERSIGHT

Faculty Appeals & Oversight Committee
Minutes of the Meeting on October 10, 2001

Members present:  Brian Himelbloom, Oscar Kawagley, Santanu Khataniar, Jerry Lipka, Victoria Moessner (chair), Julie Riley, Mitch Roth, Michael Schuldiner, Peter Stortz

Absent:  Gang Chen, Glenn Juday

Old Business:  
Mitch Roth will represent the Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee on the committee to evaluate Dr. Kan.  Brian Himelbloom will represent the Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee on the committee to evaluate Dr. Alexander.

New Business: 
The committee discussed the position of the department chair.  Mitch Roth said he would ask the Faculty Senate if there were a substantive issue that we are unaware of which should be discussed; otherwise, the Committee felt:  if not broken, don't fix it.

ATTACHMENT 104/12
UAF Faculty Senate #104
OCTOBER 29, 2001
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY DEVELOPMENT, ASSESSMENT & IMPROVEMENT

Faculty Development, Assessment and Improvement Committee 
Oct. 9, 2001 meeting minutes

I.  Call to order at 11:35.  Members present:  George Charles,  Channon Price, Debi McLean-Nelson, Joy Morrison, E. Tom Robinson, Ann Wilson  Absent:  Abul Bult, Linda Curda

2.	Old Business
A.	Meeting schedule - November 6, 2001 11:30-12:30, December 4, 2001 11:30-12:30 and January 22, 2002, 11:30-12:30.
B.	Post-tenure review Committee - Tom R. suggested chair get in touch with Carol Gold regarding this committee

3.	New business
A.	Discussion: Issue of early tenure and concerns of Provost - after a brief discussion, this committee had areas of general concern:
1.  Look at Unit Criteria for consistent standards   -  Senate should be viewing the criteria to ensure consistency from unit to unit.  Units should have unit criteria in place.  Are unit criteria used by all committees?
2.	If faculty are denied the opportunity for early tenure, will they leave university?
3.	Set up a committee to review this issue and work with faculty  and unions

B.	Other issues
1.	Joy Morrison  - on-going problem - how do we get more faculty to attend workshops?
a.	Oct. 30, 2001 - Don Foley, Director, Judicial Services - Presentation dealing with difficult students
b.	Needs Assessment for Faculty Development - $10,000.00 assessing needs of diverse faculty - she is asking for guidance an input from this committee
c.	Invitation to committee- Nov. 9, 2001- visit CAFE (Center for Faculty Excellence)  this is an opportunity to see what is available state-wide.  Also, AAHE Conference January in Phoenix.

C.	
Goals 2001-2002
1.	Increase attendance of faculty to faculty development workshops
2.	Conduct workshops that meet needs of differing levels of faculty
3.	Explore the idea of a Center for Teaching/Learning
4.	Add a catalog of available videos to the Faculty Development Webpage

Next meeting - November 6, 2001 11:30-12:30

Suggested agenda items: 
report from Joy - POD conference