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

For Audioconferencing:  Bridge #:  1-877-751-8040    (Passcode:  512265)
				Fairbanks:  474-8050  (Chair's Passcode:  802028)

A G E N D A
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #106
Monday, February 4, 2002
1:30 p.m. - 4:00 p.m.
Board of Regents' Conference Room
109 Butrovich Building

1:30	I	Call to Order – Norm Swazo      			  5 Min.
		A.	Roll Call
		B.	Approval of Minutes to Meeting #105
		C.	Adoption of Agenda

1:35	II	Status of Chancellor's Office Actions 		  5 Min.
		A.	Motions Approved:  
			1.	Motion to amend the procedure for votes of censure.
			2.	Motion to approve the Certificate in Medical Billing 
				and Coding.
			3.	Motion to approve the deletion of the B.Ed..
			4.	Motion to amend the AAS degree requirements.
			5.	Motion to amend the AA degree requirements.
			6.	Motion to amend the Natural Science requirement 
				of the Baccalaureate Core Curriculum.
			7.	Motion to approve the deletion of the MAT, 
				Elementary.
			8.	Motion to approve the Master's in Software 
				Engineering.
		B.	Motions Pending:  
			1.	Motion to recommend that the UA Board of Regents' 
				amend the UA non-discrimination statement.

1:40	III	A.	Remarks by Chancellor M. Lind   		10 Min.
		B.	Remarks by Provost P. Reichardt		  5 Min.
		C.	Guest Speaker - Ted DeLaca, Vice Provost 
			for Sponsored Program - 
			Topic:  Classified Research at UAF		10 Min.
			(Attachment 106/1)

2:05	IV	Governance Reports
	A.	ASUAF -D. Miller / GSO - 		    		  5 Min.
	B.	Staff Council - S. McCrea 				  5 Min.
	C.	President's Report - N. Swazo     			  5 Min.
	D.	President-Elect's Comments - G. Chukwu 
		(Attachment 106/2)
	E.	Academic Liaison - C. Gold				  5 Min.

2:25	V	New Business						10 Min. 
	A.	Motion to approve the M.A. degree program in 
		Applied Linguistics (Attachment 106/3), submitted 
		by the Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee 
	B.	Motion on Master Plan (Attachment 106/4), 
		submitted by Faculty Affairs

2:35		***BREAK***						10 Min

2:45	VI	Discussion Items   					10 Min.
	A.	Joint UAF/UAA Ph.D. Guidelines (Handout)
	B.	Classified Research					30 Min. 
		- Discussion Guide (Attachment 106/5)
		- President's Comments (Attachment 106/6)
		- Draft motion for discussion (Handout)

3:25	VII	Public Comments/Questions 				10 Min.

3:35	VIII	Committee Reports 					15 Min.
	A.	Curricular Affairs - R. Illingworth (Attachment 106/7)
	B.	Faculty Affairs - P. McRoy (Attachment 106/8)
	C.	Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee – H. Eicken
			(Attachment 106/9)
	D.	Core Review - D. Schamel
	E.	Curriculum Review - P. Pinney
	F.	Developmental Studies - J. Weber 
	G.	Faculty Appeals & Oversight - J. Moessner 
			(Attachment 106/10)
	H.	Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement – 
D. McLean-Nelson (Attachment 106/11)

3:50	IX	Members' Comments/Questions			  5 Min.

3:55	X	Adjournment

ATTACHMENT 106/1
UAF Faculty Senate #106
February 4, 2002

MEMORANDUM

DATE :	3 February 2001

TO :		Paul Reichardt, Provost
		Frank Williams, VCAS

FROM :	Ted DeLaca, Director, Office of Sponsored Programs

RE :	Research university positions on acceptance of classified research within the academic environment

In reference to our earlier discussions, I have undertaken a survey of changes in attitude toward the desirability of accepting government classified research onto academic campuses.  My interest in this matter was aroused during a set of presentations (at the last NCURA meeting) regarding the potential impacts of recent changes to modifications and interpretations of the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR).  At that meeting, a review of the relevant issues was presented (I have since distributed those materials to Parrish, Neumayr, Akasofu, Smith, and Williams) that discusses the history of changes to the regulations related to the Cox Report and the Los Alamos spying allegations.  Two issues should be considered: 1) whether universities and their faculties are appropriate environments for classified or proprietary research; and, 2) with the stiffening of regulations, rigid oversight and interpretations of the ITAR and EAR has it become too risky for universities to be engaged classified research?  Through heavily ‘borrowing’ from the presentations of Erica Kropp, Univ. of Maryland College Park and Barbara Yoder, Univ. California, I will make the following arguments about these two related points.  

The ‘high road’ taken by the universities represented maintained that; basic and applied research in science and engineering conducted by scientists, engineers, or students at a university normally will be considered fundamental research, and not subject to Export Regulations (EAR).  At those universities the resulting information is ordinarily published and shared broadly within the scientific community.  Those universities felt that research is not considered fundamental, and is therefore subject to the EAR, if publication of the results is;
i) 	subject to restrictions imposed by a sponsor,
ii) 	subject to substantial pre-publication review by a sponsor, or
iii) 	subject to the sponsor’s withholding results from publication.

These universities have reaffirmed that they will only accept contracts or other awards containing those restrictions after careful pre-submission institutional review.  Other language in RRPs, AOs, agency solicitations, and contracts that require significant review include:
•	Restrictions on the participation of non-US entities is required;
•	Access by non-US citizens to the project information is restricted or disallowed;
•	Hiring of non-US persons is restricted or disallowed;
•	Pre-approval rights over research publications is stipulated;
•	Requirements for pre-publication review for matters other than the inclusion of patent and/or propriety sponsor information are stipulated;
•	Sponsors claim resulting research information as proprietary or trade secret; or,
•	If security concerns are addressed.

In short, they have adopted policies stating that classified work may not be conducted on campus.  Fundamental to those decisions is that universities and their faculties are not suited for that kind of work in that there are few, if any, ways to control access and dispersal of information on a typical university campus.  They likened the introduction of classified information into the campus environment to contagion where, once it is introduced it spreads and morphs in unpredictable ways and results in significant institutional liability.

The University of California has further stated that it will not accept restrictions based upon citizenship status.  It educates and discourages its investigators from signing Militarily Critical Technical Data Agreements (DD2345), Air Force Acquisition Clause 5353.227-9000, titled Export-Control Data Restrictions, or DoD requirements for project personnel to complete the Questionnaire for Public Trust Positions.  Again, the rationale for this is that they feel protection of the openness and international participation in science is as much a national service and in the national interest as is the conduct of classified research.  I do not know what educational efforts or university policies related to our employees signing such statements presently exists for UA but think that there is nothing.  

I surveyed 21 universities, quasi-randomly, for their policies related to acceptance of classified research projects on campus and found that 5 universities allowed classified research apparently without restriction; 11 universities allowed classified research under some circumstances; and, 5 universities would not allow classified research to be conducted on their campuses (see the following table).  Erica Kropp (U. Maryland) expressed concern that because of increasing awareness of these issues, the web pages that I surveyed may not be up to date.

	Open to Classified research	Classified allowed with reservations	Classified research NOT allowed	Models to consider	
Arizona State		X			
George Mason		X		X	
Illinois State U			X		
Indiana U.			X		
Loyola	X				
North Dakota State Univ.			X	X	
Notre Dame		X			
Ohio State U.	X				
Oregon State U.			X		
Stanford U.		X	X		
SUNY			X		
U. Alaska		X			
U. Calif.		X	X		
U. Miami Med.	X				
U. Michigan		X		X	
U. New Mexico		X			
U. No. Carolina Chapel Hill		X		X	
U. Colorado, Boulder	X				
U. Colorado, Colorado Spr.	X				
U. Virginia		X		X	
Virginia Tech.		X			

ITAR*:
As a result of the Cox Report, Congress reiterated the importance of the Missile Technology Control Regimes and stated that “…due to the sensitivity of technologies involved, it is in the national security interests of the United States that United States satellites and related items be subject to the same export controls that apply… to munitions.”  That congressional action resulted in the transfer of jurisdiction of the ITAR from the Commerce Department to the Department of State.  

The following citations seem relevant:
ITAR 120.1	the purpose of ITAR is to control export/import of defense articles and services;
ITAR 120.3	defines “defense articles” and defense services” as items designed or intended for military use and activities that support that military use and not having a preponderant civilian use, and it points to items listed at ITAR 121.1 (the Munitions List);
ITAR 121.1	(Munitions List – Spacecraft Systems and Associated Equipment), subparagraph a) provides that scientific, research, and experimental satellites are to be deemed Significant Military Equipment only if intended for use by foreign armed services.  (SME is a designation that may make anything subject to ITAR 120.7 based on “substantial military utility” or capability)
ITAR 121.1(f)…[last sentence of the first paragraph) "Further, technical data directly related to the manufacture or production of all spacecraft, notwithstanding the nature of the intended end use (e.g., even where the hardware is not SME), is designated SME."

With the transfer of jurisdiction of ITAR to the Department of State has come a great deal of uncertainty regarding the involvement of universities and their faculty in satellite sensors, retrieved data and the research related to data processing, algorithm development, and related issues.

While there is the potential (even encouragement from some industrial collaborators and funding agencies) for involved universities to apply for export licenses to attract contracts or somehow avoid penalties, we were discouraged from doing so.  Universities presently enjoy an exemption from some of the policies and regulations of ITAR by virtue the general recognition of their openness policies regarding research and publication of data and information.  The general consensus at the NCURA meeting was that universities do not have the wherewithal (policies, staffing, physical plant security….) to avoid the many pitfalls of playing in this arena.  

NASA has posted the following note related to fines and penalties related to ITAR and EAR infractions:
•	Export Laws & Regulations are binding
•	Penalties for violations will be assessed to the person responsible and not to NASA
•	International Traffic In Arms (ITAR) penalties
•	Fine of $1 million per violation
•	Imprisonment – 10 years per violation
•	Export Administration penalties (EAR
•	Fine of up to $10K+
•	Imprisonment for up to 10 years

The statement that followed that note: Violations of Export Control Regulations jeopardize NASA’s export privileges, and that new legislation has increased the cost of the fines.

Summary and personal recommendations:
I have personally been involved in classified research since I was a first year graduate student (AEC), and have continued my involvement throughout my research career.  I know that it is possible to manage classified research programs on university campuses but it does take a significant commitment on the part of the university to establish and actively maintain such programs (including security administration and oversights).  While we could develop a more rigorous program for classified research, UAF needs to undertake a benefit/cost evaluation to consider whether we should do so.  These are changing and troubled times for academia (e.g., Los Alamos) and I think it is important to vigorously consider all of our options on these matters.  Isolating Poker Flat (and possibly ARSC) as secured facilities is considered to be a possible solution.  While that may prove to be a partial solution, those faculty and students will not be restricted to Poker Flat but will also be spending considerable time on the UAF campus.  Whether UA does or does not participated in classified research, we should develop a required educational program that provides adequate information on University and federal policies, rules and regulations related to these issues as part of the larger educational program on research compliance.

[*National Security Decision Directive 189 resulted from Executive Order 12356 issued by President Regan in 1989.  It was subsequently modified because of the Cox Report and the Los Alamos spying allegations in 1998]

ATTACHMENT 106/2
UAF Faculty Senate #106
February 4, 2002

Godwin A. Chukwu, President-Elect:

There seems to be a communication gap between the faculty and the faculty representatives (the senators) in the UAF faculty senate.  It was on the premise of this assumption that the "UAF Senate News" (a monthly newsletter) was launched so as to disseminate brief information to the faculty of senate actions and, or decisions.  Senators on the other hand serve as the mouth piece of their respective colleges/schools  and whose main duties in their capacity include providing faculty awareness on pertinent issues relating to faculty professional and career well-being, quality and enhancement of the academic programs.

Senators should take advantage of their college/school meetings to periodically brief the faculty on details of senate actions and deliberations.  Department Chairs' monthly meetings should serve as another excellent forum for "senators' briefs" and it is from this level that respective faculty can be frequently made aware of senate deliberations and actions.  Faculty should be well informed of several senate committees through which important faculty, student and academic issues can be channeled to the senate for deliberations

As we draw close towards the end of the 2001/2002 academic year, it is time to elect and fill vacant senate seats in various colleges and schools.  Twenty five vacant seats will be filled.  Many faculty have not realized the burden and extra responsibilities that are associated with serving in the faculty senate.  It is not a "glorified" title or responsibility.  It is a commitment to service that affects the everyday activities within the university for the smooth running and continuous improvement of the academic programs' qualities.

I am calling on all faculty to strive to elect senate representatives whom they consider to be able to meet the demands of the responsibilities and commitment to serve.

ATTACHMENT 106/3
UAF Faculty Senate #106
February 4, 2002
SUBMITTED BY GRADUATE ACADEMIC & ADVISORY COMMITTEE

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve a M.A. degree program in Applied Linguistics which includes four new courses.  

	EFFECTIVE:  	Fall 2002 or 
				Upon Board of Regents' Approval

	RATIONALE: 	See full program proposal #3-6 and #7 on file 
				in the Governance Office, 312 Signers’ Hall.

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

	(Submitted by Linguistics, ANLP, English, and Foreign Languages)
3.	NEW COURSE:  LING 603 - Phonetics and Phonology (3+0) 
	3 credits; offered Alternate Fall; first offered Fall 2004.  
4.	NEW COURSE:  LING 604 - Morphology & Syntax (3+0) 3 credits; 
	offered Alternate Spring; first offered Spring 2003.  
5.	NEW COURSE:  LING 652 - Linguistic Applications (3+0) 3 credits; 
	offered Alternate Year; first offered Fall 2003.
6.	NEW COURSE:  LING 660 - Internship, 3 credits; offered once a 
	year; first offered Spring 2004.
7.	NEW DEGREE PROGRAM:  MA, Applied Linguistics - Consists of 
	4 new core courses, LING 603, LING 604, LING 652, LING 660.  
	Program will require minimum of 30 credits including a 6 credit 
	Thesis or Applied Language Project.  Effective Fall 2002 or upon 
	BOR approval.   

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

M.A., Applied Linguistics

The Linguistics Program, with the Alaska Native Language Center, the English Department, and the Foreign Languages and Literatures Department, proposes a Master of Arts degree in Applied Linguistics with emphases in Language Teaching and Materials Development.  This degree program will allow UAF to meet the growing need statewide for qualified language teachers in Native languages, world languages, and English as a second language.  The primary candidates for the degree program are students who intend to teach adults at the community college level, to work on materials and curriculum for Alaska Native languages, or to teach abroad--jobs for which K-12 certification is not required.  Additionally, the proposed program will appeal to language teachers who already are certified and who seek a Masters of Arts degree.  

State Needs

Education  Programs

Students

Research

Faculty & Staff

Technology & Facilities

University of Alaska New Program Approval

Board of Regents Summary Form

MAU:

Title and brief description:   Master of Arts in Applied Linguistics
The Linguistics Program, in consort with the Alaska Native Language Program, the English Department, and the Foreign Languages and Literatures Department, proposes a Master of Arts degree in Applied Linguistics with emphases in Language Teaching, Materials Development, and Language Policy and Planning.

Objectives:  
●	To provide theoretical and practical foundations in second language acquisition and pedagogy, as well as grammatical explication, for students wishing to teach Alaska Native languages, world languages, or English as a second language. 
●	To provide a cadre of Master’s Level language instructors to meet a growing need at UAF, both in World Languages and in Alaska Native Languages.  
●	To create opportunities for distance delivery or summer offerings of the graduate courses in the Program

Target Admission date: Fall, 2002

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

How does the program relate to the Education Mission of the University of Alaska?
The proposed program emphasizes interdisciplinary research and scholarship on language in the North.  For example, the Alaska Native Language Center is world renowned for its documentation and comparative research on Alaska Native and other Northern languages.  This program will help prepare graduates to take important roles in language policy and planning for Alaskan communities.  It also will provide more qualified teachers, interpreters, and translators of world languages, thus meeting state, national, and global needs.  

Describe the State Needs being met by this program.

There is a growing need within Alaska to provide qualified language teachers.   An Anchorage, Alaska survey revealed that 86 different languages were spoken in the schools.   The demand is for qualified teachers of indigenous Native languages in Alaska, English as a second language, and for world languages.   Language planning is vital to addressing the needs and opportunities for each of these language groups.

What are the Student opportunities and outcomes?  The enrollment projections?

The type of organizations that responded to a survey revealed that language teachers are required in public school settings, universities, non-profit tribal colleges, and adult education programs.   There are opportunities for students to teach, to conduct research, and to develop language policies in Alaska.  In a student survey, 23 people stated they would apply to a UAF Master’s degree program in Applied Linguistics with an emphasis on language teaching if it were offered.   The enrollment projection is 10 students per academic year.

Describe the Research opportunities, if applicable.
The proposed program would allow graduate students to work with scholars in ANLC, Linguistics and Anthropology, Foreign Languages and English to carry out research projects utilizing the resources and expertise available on these languages and cultures.  The proposed MA in Applied Linguistics would provide opportunities for faculty and students to create language teaching materials.

Identify any additional Faculty and Staff requirements as well as any existing expertise and resources that will be applied.

One full-time faculty member will be requested.  This position is expected to be jointly appointed in Linguistics and one of the other disciplines (ANL, Foreign Languages, English).  One half-time administrative support position is being requested.  Three TA-ships will be requested.  The TA- ships will be coordinated through the new program but the student will provide teaching assistance in ANL, Foreign languages, and English as a second language.  

Identify the impacts on existing Technology & Facilities as well as projected needs.

One additional faculty office space is needed, as well as a space for the administrative assistant.

ATTACHMENT 106/4
UAF Faculty Senate #106
February 4, 2002
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY AFFAIRS

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to request that the Chancellor delay by one semester the schedule of implementation of the Draft Master Plan to allow modifications based on recommendations and comments from faculty, staff and students.

	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately

RATIONALE:  	The full draft of a new Master Plan was presented to the university community in October of 2001.  The Faculty Affairs Committee took up the review of this draft and produced a review in December.  The Master Planning Committee has a January date for publication of the hard-copy version of the Master Plan.  This publication schedule does not allow for adequate consideration of new comments and recommendations.  Faculty Affairs met with representatives of the Master Planning Committee in December and January and in each case was informed that it was really too late to consider any substantive changes to the Plan.  The Faculty Affairs Committee has received numerous comments about the new draft plan and introduces this motion to ensure adequate review before implementation of any new Master Plan.  Given the usual pace of university governance, the Faculty Affairs Committee views the inadequate time for review a shortfall in the master plan process.

ATTACHMENT 106/5
UAF Faculty Senate #106
February 4, 2002

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 106/6
UAF Faculty Senate #106
February 4, 2002

President’s Comments, UAF Faculty Senate Meeting #104, 29 October 2001
Norm Swazo

	Donald Kennedy, past president of Stanford University, has remarked in his book, Academic Duty (Harvard University Press, 1997), "By nature, universities are controversial places.  Their successes and failures draw intense public scrutiny because they really matter."  Kennedy adds, "As our society needs higher education, so higher education needs public trust.  Thus, we must take the criticism [from the public] seriously, and ask about its origin".  The origin of this criticism, argues Kennedy, "has much to do with our internal failure to come to grips with responsibility in the university.  Having been given a generous dose of academic freedom, we haven't taken care of the other side of the bargain…If we can clarify our perception of duty and gain public acceptance of it, we will have fulfilled an important obligation to society that nurtures us.  That obligation constitutes the highest institutional form of academic duty".

	Kennedy’s remarks are apropós in this moment in which I call attention to the academic duty of the UAF Faculty Senate.  Surely we concur with Kennedy in his claim that "The very heart of the institution’s academic duty to society is the work of its faculty".  It is the work of the faculty that is central to garnering the public trust.  We should therefore take notice when a member of the public such as local columnist Dan O'Neill writes (Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, Saturday, October 20, 2001) with reference to prospective classified research at UAF, "A culture of secrecy may be intrinsic to military research, but it is anathema to a university".

	O'Neill's statement signals a public criticism as the work of UAF faculty meets with public scrutiny.  Properly engaged, such criticism ought to reinforce our need to "clarify our perception of our duty", specifically our duty to society, as we debate the issue of conducting classified research at UAF.  Whatever the policy recommendation forwarded in due course by the UAF Faculty Senate, this recommendation must be advanced as part of our clarification of our academic duty and with a view to gaining a public acceptance of our perception of that duty.  Kennedy observes that "it is much easier to distrust an institution whose operations and purposes are obscure", and surely this provides advance warning as we here at UAF take up the question of classified research that may inevitably entail "a culture of secrecy" which O'Neill says is "anathema to a university".

	It is essential that we get the right policy in place here at UAF.  The levels of secrecy that characterize classified research are, in my view, all the more formidable when related to what Kennedy (with reference to comments made by the German physicist Max Planck) calls "an implacable law of the economics of knowledge":

Each incremental unit of new knowledge costs more that the last.  It’s not hard to explain.  We tend to answer the easier questions first; the answers to those then suggest harder questions.  Furthermore, we develop new tools in the course of our investigations and then apply them to subsequent work.  For a constant increment of gain at the frontier we thus find ourselves allocating more and more resources.

	As the UAF Faculty Senate today formally initiates our discussion with a view to recommending a policy on classified research, I urge Senators to do so with all the requisite seriousness that this question poses for our academic duty to society and to the public trust we must ever strive to sustain.  And, I especially urge Senators to bear in mind that "implacable law of the economics of knowledge" which is perhaps even more germane to the conduct of classified research.  

ATTACHMENT 106/7
UAF Faculty Senate #106
February 4, 2002
SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS

Curricular Affairs Committee Meeting Report

The Curricular Affairs committee held the first audioconferenced meeting of the Spring semester on 17 Jan 2002 10:30-1200 am.  Members present included Mike Hannigan, Wanda Martin, Peter Pinney, Eduard Zilberkant, Carol Barnhardt, James Gladden, Gary Holton, Larry Duffy for David Woodall, Britt Arneson, and Ron Illingworth.  

The meeting was audioconferenced as some members of the committee are from outside Fairbanks.

1.	The committee discussed the proposal from the College of Liberal Arts creating a new minor in Global Studies and determined to schedule a series of two open forum meetings one of which will be audioconferenced so that all interested persons can have input into the creation of this minor.  

2.	The committee discussed the proposal from the College of Liberal Arts creating a new baccalaureate degree in External Studies and determined to schedule a series of two open forum meetings one of which will be audioconferenced so that all interested persons can have input into the creation of this degree.  For both of these proposals, we suggest a meeting time from 1-2 pm on Tuesday or Thursday.  The Curricular Affairs committee will facilitate setting up the forums along with the assistance of the governance office.  However, we determined that it will be the responsibility of the program proposers to conduct the meeting and to obtain the input and to modify the proposals as necessary and appropriate.  Proposals may be resubmitted to the Curricular Affairs committee after this action has been completed.

3.	The committee delayed discussion on the issues of resident credit requirements and Foreign Language Bonus Credit options until the Registrar could participate. 

Other items on our agenda for future discussion include the following:

4.	The committee began a dialogue regarding the admission of students underprepared for admission to baccalaureate degree programs.  A sub-issue here are our admission requirements in light of the State Department of Education’s initiatives which have granted waivers to at least 6 school districts from the requirement to use Carnegie units for graduation.

5.	Related Instruction requirements for the Certificate programs.  The College of Rural Alaska is putting together a change to these requirements which they will bring forward for approval.

6.	Continued discussion about credit expectations and measurements as they relate to outcomes assessment and all delivery modes.

7.	Low Grade Reports and limited faculty participation

Respectfully submitted

Ronald D. Illingworth, Chair
Curricular Affairs Committee

ATTACHMENT 106/8
UAF Faculty Senate #106
February 4, 2002
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY AFFAIRS

Faculty Affairs - Report of meeting, 14 January 2002

Committee Members:  Mike Davis, Rural Development, Dillingham; Joan Leguard, Philosophy & Humanities; Jennifer McBeath, SALARM; Peter McRoy (Chair), SFOS; Roger Smith (Ex-Officio), GI

Guests:  N. Swazo, Abel Bult
Master Plan Committee: John Craven, Bob Wheeler, Chris Bennett, Mike Supkis, Clark Milne, Pat Holloway, Don Foley, Cindy Branley and Deborah Brownfield.

Agenda

New Business
1.	Senate organization (McRoy)
The procedure for doing business in the Senate will be an agenda item this semester. Specifically, McRoy suggests that the Administrative Committee in effect is a filter that blocks academic discussion of issues on the Senate floor. We will examine ways to improve the procedure.

Old Business:
1.	Discussion of Draft Master Plan (DMP):

The Committee met with members of the Master Planning Committee to discuss the review of the FA report on the Draft Master Plan submitted in December. 
The DMP Committee members presented the view that the plan is basically a strategy for the future of the campus and that details were subject to change.  FA members pointed out in the plan case after case of what can only be called tactics, i.e., detailed small-scale actions serving the larger purpose. The DMP is actually a mix of both of these but there was some impasse on agreement between the committees on this.  The overall meeting was unsatisfactory. The DMP committee indicated that none of the comments or recommendations of the Faculty Affairs report would be considered in the plan. They suggested that most of the concerns were accounted for by the vagaries of language in the DMP. Faculty Affairs does not agree. The conclusion of FA is that both the plan and its goals are flawed as stated in our report. A fundamental premise of the report is that UAF has excessive parking compared to 8 other northern universities. FA using the DMP data that parking is primarily a function of latitude and that UAF must continue to expand its parking spaces.  Comments received by Faculty Affairs from faculty and staff continue to indicate a strong desire to have parking places close to buildings, a major conflict with the DMP. 
	The DMP has several goals that superficially would seem to be beneficial to UAF however it does not include a goal that seeks to improve the effectiveness of UAF as a place to work and in fact some of the existing goals could be a conflict to this. 
Finally, there was every sense that this plan is being ramrodded through the University on a schedule that does not allow adequate time for changes due to faculty review.  Consequently Faculty Affairs proposes the following motion:

The Chancellor delay by one semester the schedule of implementation of the Draft Master Plan to allow modifications based on recommendations and comments from faculty, staff and students.

Rationale: 	The full draft of a new Master Plan was presented to the university community in October of 2001. While the Faculty Affairs Committee took up the review of this draft and produced a review in December, the Draft Maser Plan Committee was locked in to a schedule that did not allow consideration of new comments and recommendations. A final report from the Draft Master Plan Committee is expected by the end of January 2002. Faculty Affairs met with representatives of the DMP in December and January and in each case was informed that it was really too late to consider any substantive changes to the Plan. The Faculty Affairs Committee has received numerous comments about the new draft plan and introduces this motion to ensure adequate review before implementation of any new Master Plan. Given the usual pace of university governance, the Faculty Affairs Committee views the inadequate time for review a shortfall in the master plan process.

Other Items:
2.	Regulation on Research Misconduct (McRoy)
Document still in review by University counsel office.

3.	UAF Budget process (McRoy/Smith)
This is a continuing item. The initiative process is under review.

4.	Classified Research (Smith/Swazo)
There will be a discussion at the February Senate meeting.

ATTACHMENT 106/9
UAF Faculty Senate #106
February 4, 2002
SUBMITTED BY GRADUATE ACADEMIC & ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee (GAAC) Meeting Report, December 18, 2001, 9.30-11.00 am, Kayak Room, Rasmuson

Present: Gayle Gregory, Elke Richmond, Sandra Bond, Lillian Corti, Colin Read, Susan Henrichs, Madeline Schatz, Norm Swazo, Ed Bueler, Eric Rexstad, Hajo Eicken
Guests: G. McBeath, J. Kleinfeld, T. Cole, K. Erickson

I. New Business

(1) Course/Program requests
The following course requests were unanimously approved by the committee:
New course:  GEOS 601-Advanced X-ray Spectroscopy (#15); GG: this needs to be changed to GEOS619 
New course:  GEOS 608-Geologic Hazards and Natural Disasters (#16)
Change course:  CS 671-Software Engineering (#17)
New course:  ECON 621 - Fundamentals of Economics (#30)
Change course:  CS 471 - Software Engineering; drop stack status w/ CS 671, retain as a separate course (#75, see #17 graduate request)
New course:  LING 603 - Phonetics and Phonology (#3)
New course:  LING 604 - Morphology & Syntax (#4)
New course:  LING 652 - Linguistic Applications (#5)
New course:  LING 660 - Internship (#6)
New course:  NORS 613 - Wilderness and Environmental Psychology (#8)
Drop course:  PS 449/NORS 649 - Comparative Government and Politics in the Circumpolar North (#15)
New course:  PS 447 - U.S. Environmental Politics (#17), stacked w/ NORS 647
New course:  PS 454 - International Law and the Environment (#18); stacked w/ NORS 654
New course:  PS 455 - Political Economy of the Global Environment (#19), stacked w/ NORS 655
New course:  PS 456 - Science, Technology, and Politics (#20), stacked w/ NORS 656
New course:  PS 458 - Comparative Environmental Politics (#21), stacked w/ NORS 658
Trial course: PS494/694 - Science, Technology, and Politics (spring 2002)

The course requests submitted by Applied Business (ABUS) required further clarification (comments forwarded by J. Gladden; clarification of title with change to Applied Public Admin. Or Management, also to avoid problems with course identification by students; course descriptions for 551 & 552 identical; consult/enquire about Senate Policy regarding 500-level courses), C. Dexter will be invited to next GAAC meeting for discussion.

(3) Joint Ph.D. Program w/ UAA, S. Henrichs
Committee considering joint Ph.D. with UAA asked for input and comments regarding draft guidelines to be forwarded to UAA for review. Issue should be brought forward at next Faculty Senate Meeting as informational item.

II. Old Business

(1) Proposal for New Program in Applied Linguistics
After reviewing the changes and additional information provided, the Committee unanimously approved the proposal to be forwarded to the Faculty Senate.

(2) Request for Major Program Change: Northern Studies, Concentration in Global Environmental Policy
After reviewing the modifications in the Northern Studies Program description in the catalog and considering additional information provided to the committee, the following items were discussed: (1) While the issue of course stacking may warrant further discussion at a general level, the concerns w/ regards to this specific program had been addressed; it was pointed out that current policy (p. 167 catalog) does not permit students to obtain stacked-course credit for both undergraduate and graduate work (based on experience in Northern Studies, undergraduates taking stacked courses was assumed to be the exception). (2) Concerns regarding the title of the concentration were addressed by pointing out that the degree would be awarded in Northern Studies (w/ concentration in …) and that the NORS core courses would still be part of the concentration; the letter of support by O. Young also addressed this concern. (3) The comments by a faculty member regarding the NORS history concentration will be addressed and taken into account at the Department level, the acting Head of the History Dept. was present to answer questions by the committee. (4) The need for coordination of the economics portion of the program was identified and had been largely addressed at the previous meeting. 
The committee unanimously approved the request for a major program change.

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

Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee (GAAC) Meeting 
January 24, 2002, 2-3.30 pm, Kayak Room, Rasmuson Library

Present: Gayle Gregory, Susan Henrichs, Maribeth Murray, Chuen-Sen Lin, Lillian Corti, Ed Bueler, Joe Kan, Madeline Schatz, Hajo Eicken
Guests: Charlie Dexter, Jim Gladden, Jacob Joseph, Jim Collins 

I. New Business
(1) Resource commitment to proposed new degree
Following up on earlier discussions with the GAAC and in order to streamline application process for new degree programs, UAF administration is considering introduction of resource commitment forms to help assess and specify resource commitments that will be part of the program in question. The GAAC will discuss and draft a corresponding form.

II. Old Business
(1) Joint Ph.D. Program w/ UAA
Comments are solicited on draft document prior to discussing this with UAA. At the next Faculty Senate meeting, a brief presentation and discussion of the document will be part of the agenda.

(2) Ph.D. Residence requirements
Motivated by written comments/questions submitted by Jonah Lee regarding current residency requirements (or lack thereof) for Ph.D. students at UAF, the GAAC discussed this issue in the context of distance delivery and potential joint Ph.D. programs with other MAUs. 

Residency requirement for Ph.D. programs was removed by Senate in 1999/2000, further research into rationale required. Currently, Master's Degree programs include one semester residency requirement, resulting in distance-delivered programs (such as Justice Administration) being out of compliance with current policy. The GAAC feels that these issues need to be addressed. After some discussion a consensus emerged that presence on campus was a key component of the graduate experience (and due to important contributions by graduate students of vital importance for the university). On the other hand, distance delivery of courses and collaboration with UAA on Ph.D. programs also needs to be taken into account. Potentially this can be addressed by introducing a residency requirements for graduate studies at all levels that requires specific exemption for individual programs by GAAC. 

(3) Course/Program requests
NEW COURSE:  ABUS 551 - Public Administration Processes (#10)
NEW COURSE:  ABUS 552 - Public Administration (#11)
NEW COURSE:  ABUS 554 - Principles of Leadership (#12)
NEW COURSE:  ABUS 579 - Human Resource Management (#13)

Charlie Dexter provided overview of ABUS courses that were to complement existing 200-level courses (2 levels of courses for 500-level courses). Currently 35 people from community enrolled in the program.

Jim Gladden pointed out that ABUS 552 is very similar to/redundant with PS212 (Introduction to Public Administration). Concerns were raised about lack of credentials in offering these courses. Jim Collins raised concerns about overlap with SOM mission and potential problems with AACSB accreditation down the line, given that the latter concerns all Post-Baccalaureate courses, as well as lack of advance discussion with SOM and others in the planning process. Charlie Dexter pointed towards mission of TVC in offering these courses mostly for accreditation requirements of teachers and hence different clientele. 

The course requests will be revised in coordination with Gladden, Joseph, Collins et al. to minimize or eliminate concerns raised. Further discussion indicated that Post-Baccalaureate course and program offerings (in particular 500-level) may require more interdepartmental coordination and exchange prior to submission of course requests than is currently the case. 

ATTACHMENT 106/10
UAF Faculty Senate #106
February 4, 2002
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY APPEALS AND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE

Faculty Appeals & Oversight Committee Meeting December 17, 2001

Present:  Peter Stortz, Julia Riley, Mitch Roth, Glenn Juday, Gang Cheng, Santanu Khataniar, Brian Himelbloom, Victoria Moessner

Absent:  Michael Schuldiner, Jerry Lipka

Norm Swazo met once again with the committee.  We discussed the questions he had about the policy/procedure from 1990:

The committee decided to build two subcommittees.  One to formulate a "process rich" proposal and the other to formulate a "policy rich" proposal that can be presented to the Senate at its next meeting as a discussion item.

ATTACHMENT 106/11
UAF Faculty Senate #106
February 4, 2002
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY DEVELOPMENT, ASSESSMENT & IMPROVEMENT

FDAI minutes, December 4, 2001, 11:30-1:00 Working lunch

Members present:  Abel Bult, Channon Price, Tom Robinson, George Charles, Joy Morrison, Jim Collins, Ann Wilson, Roger Norris-Tull, Debi McLean
Guests:  Dan Wheeler

Call to order.  Minutes accepted from November 6, 2001 meeting.

I.	Introduction of  Dan Wheeler, Consultant

Dan stated that he understood UAF is unique because faculty are spread out over a huge geographical area and the problems that presents for faculty development.  Just the logistics of bringing people in for face/face is a task.  He said that from meetings he attended, it appeared that administration was aware of the problem and that they were working toward solutions.  Interest has done much to close the gap, but much more needs to be done.  Dan's role is to gather data and report to administration.

II.	Issues
Mentoring /Assessing
Dan discussed mentoring and assessment and the separation of roles.  He pointed out the value of formative feedback that needs to occur between the assessor and the teacher and that this is not necessarily the role of the mentor.  The need for an individual qualified in the assessment of teaching was discussed.  Dan pointed out that summative feedback (i.e., tenure and promotion file) may "carry to much baggage".  A systematic process for formative(i.e., observations of teaching, review of syllabus and materials) and summative evaluation could be explored. 

Other issues discussed included "being a mentor", "finding a mentor", and motivating faculty to engage in professional development.  Orientation for new faculty and the development of a rubric for teaching quality to aid instructors, especially those with no teaching background was mentioned.  Roger suggested the observation tool used by the SOE could be formatted to meet this need.  Cross-cultural communications, voluntary tracking system of professional development, and developing professional portfolios were also discussed.  A final topic was the Center for Excellence.  How do we begin to garner support?  A center would help organize and structure professional development activities.

Joy's department already works with many of the above mentioned areas.  Dan suggested that we conceptualize broadly and do what can be done well and for purposes of accountability and standards, decide what things need to happen.

III.	Rural faculty Meeting with Dan Wheeler Dec.7, 1:00-2:00
Similar issues were discussed - mentoring responsibilities, and motivation of faculty for professional development as well as institutional support to keep abreast in field.  More emphasis was placed on professional development of new hires, collegial support and tech support because of the distance from Fairbanks and between campuses.  Faculty have additional individual needs because they are spread out over a large area, sometimes without the support of colleagues. 

Submitted by D. McLean