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 #109
Monday, May 6, 2002
1:30 p.m. - 5:10 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 #108
		C.	Adoption of Agenda

1:35	II	Status of Chancellor's Office Actions 		  5 Min.
		A.	Motions Approved:  
			1.	Motion to amend the Certificate Program 
				requirements.
			2.	Motion to amend the Master's Degree residency 
				Requirement.
			3.	Motion to amend the New Program Request Form 
				to require the completion of a Resource Commitment 
				Form.
			4.	Motion to amend the New Course Request and the 
				Change Course Request forms to include a question 
				on the impact of proposed action.
			5.	Motion to amend the Mathematics Literacy 
				component of the Core Curriculum to include 
				MATH 161.
			6.	Motion to endorse the Core Review Committee's 
				recommendation for a university's Writing-Across- 
				the Curriculum Program and curriculum specialist.
		B.	Motions Pending:  none
			1.	Motion to approve the M.A. degree program 
				in Applied Linguistics.

1:35	III	Announcements & Presentations       		10 Min.
	A.	Announcement of Usibelli Awards (Attachment 109/1)
	B.	Announcement of Emeriti Faculty Awards 
		(Attachment 109/2)

1:45	IV	A.	Remarks by Chancellor M. Lind   		10 Min.
		B.	Guest Speaker - Craig Dorman, 		20 Min.
			Vice President for Research 
		C.	"Web for Faculty" - Ann Tremarello & 	15 Min.
			Colleen Abrams

2:30	V	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 - Godwin Chukwu 	  5 Min.
	E.	Academic Liaison - Carol Gold    			  5 Min.

2:55		***BREAK***						10 Min

3:05	VI	Public Comments/Questions 				10 Min.

3:15	VII	Unfinished Business					50 Min.
	A.	Motion to approve the list of the 2001-2002 degree
		candidates, submitted by Administrative Committee
		 (Attachment 109/3), submitted by Curricular Affairs
	B.	Motion to approved "O" syllabus requirements 
		(Attachment 109/4), submitted by Core Review
	C.	Motion to approved "W" syllabus requirements 
		(Attachment 109/5), submitted by Core Review
	D. 	Motion to amend the definition of Scholastic and 
		Academic standing (Attachment 109/6), submitted 
		by Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee 
	E.	Motion to amend the Appeals Policy for Academic 
		Decisions Other Than Assignment of Grades 
		(Attachment 109/ 7), submitted by Faculty Affairs
	F.	Motion to amend the Grade Appeals Policy 
		(Attachment 109/ 8), submitted by Faculty Affairs
	G.	Motion to amend the UAF Regulations for Emeritus 
		Status (Attachment 109/9), submitted by Faculty Affairs
	H.	Motion to adopt a statement of Censure of Administrators 
		(Attachment 109/10), submitted by Faculty Appeals & 
		Oversight
	I.	Resolution to endorse CACNE (Attachment 109/11), 
		submitted by Administrative Committee
	J.	Motion to amend the UAF Policies & Regulations 
		for the Appointment and Evaluation of Faculty 
		(Attachment 109/12), submitted by Administrative 
		Committee
	K.	Motion on Classified Research (Attachment 109/13), 
		submitted by Faculty Affairs 

4:05	VIII	Annual Committee Reports 				15 Min.
	A.	Curricular Affairs - R. Illingworth (Attachment 109/14)
	B.	Faculty Affairs - P. McRoy (Handout)
	C.	Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee – H. Eicken 
		(Attachment 109/15 & 16)
	D.	Core Review - D. Schamel
	E.	Curriculum Review - P. Pinney
	F.	Developmental Studies - J. Weber  (Attachment 109/17)
	G.	Faculty Appeals & Oversight - J. Moessner 
		(Attachment 109/18)
	H.	Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement – 
D. McLean-Nelson (Attachment 109/19 & 20)

4:20	IX	Members' Comments/Questions			  5 Min.

4:25		***BREAK***						10 Min

4:35	XI	2002-2003 Faculty Senate Members Take Their Seats
	A.	Roll Call of 2002-2003 Members   			  5 Min.
	B	President's Remarks - Godwin Chukwu		  5 Min. 

4:45	XII	New Senate Business  					20 Min.
	A.	Motion to endorse 2002-2003 committee membership,
		submitted by Administrative Committee (Attachment 109/21)

**BREAK FOR 5 MINUTES FOR ELECTION OF STANDING COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSONS**

	B.	Motion to approve the 2002-2003 UAF Faculty Senate 
		meeting calendar, submitted by Administrative Committee 
		(Attachment 109/22)
	C.	Motion to authorize the Administrative Committee to 
		act on behalf of the Senate during the summer months, 
		submitted by Administrative Committee 
		(Attachment 109/23)

5:05	XIII	Members' Comments/Questions			  5 Min.

5:10	X	Adjournment

ATTACHMENT 109/1
UAF Faculty Senate #109
May 6, 2002

Usibelli Award Nominees 2002

Teaching
Marty Getz		Instructor, Mathematics    		CSEM  
2002 Recipient
David Blurton		Associate Professor, Justice			CLA
Pete Pinney			Associate Professor, Academic Programs	TVC
Eric Rexstad			Associate Professor, Biology & Wildlife	CSEM

Research
Larry Duffy		Professor, Chemistry & Biochemistry	CSEM 
2002 Recipient
John Eichelberger   	Professor, Volcanology    			GI
Jerry Lipka			Professor, Education				SOEd
Gerald Mohatt		Professor, Psychology				CLA
Roger W. Ruess		Professor of Biology				CSEM

Service
Jim Douglas		Extension Agent				CES 
2002 Recipient
Gerald Berman		Professor, Social Work    			CLA
Kathleen Butler-Hopkins	Professor of Music  				CLA
Godwin Chukwu		Professor, Petroleum Engineering		SME
Charles Crapo		Seafood Quality Specialist		SFOS/MAP
Linda Curda			Associate Professor of Community Health	CRA
Carol Diehl			Counselor, Asst. Professor		Health Center
Jakub Esop   		Assoc. Professor, Culinary Arts			TVC
Roger Hansen		State Seismologist				GI
Oscar Kawagley		Assoc. Professor, Education		SOEd, ANKN
Tara Maginnis		Assoc. Professor, Theatre			CLA
Phyllis Morrow		Professor, Anthropology  			CLA
Thomas Riccio		Professor, Theatre  				CLA
Norm Swazo		Professor of Philosophy   			CLA

ATTACHMENT 109/2
UAF Faculty Senate #109
May 6, 2002

2001-2002 Emeriti List

Mr. Brian Paust, SFOS/MAP, Professor of Fisheries, Emeritus

Dr. Albert V. Tyler, SFOS, Professor of Fisheries, Emeritus

Dr. Charles W. Knight, SALRM, Associate Professor of Agronomy, Emeritus

Dr. Pham X. Quang, CSEM/DMS, Professor of Statistics, Emeritus

Dr. Max Wyss, GI, Professor of Seismology, Emeritus

Dr. Donald M. Schell, SFOS/IMS, Professor of Marine Sciences & Water Resources, Emeritus

Ms. Ann Tremarello, Registrar, Emerita

ATTACHMENT 109/3
UAF Faculty Senate #109
May 6, 2002
SUBMITTED BY 

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.

ATTACHMENT 109/4
UAF Faculty Senate #109
May 6, 2002
SUBMITTED BY CORE REVIEW

MOTION: 
======

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

	EFFECTIVE:   	Fall semester 2002.

	RATIONALE:    	With the high turnover of faculty teaching 
		"O" courses, there seems to be confusion about what 
		needs to be included in such courses.  The inclusion of 
		wording such as this in the course syllabus will better 
		insure that the course actually contains the appropriate 
		material AND that students are aware that this is indeed 
		an "O" course.

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

Syllabus Statement Regarding the Oral-Intensive "O" Requirement

This is an example of the type of wording that MUST appear in the syllabus of an "O" or "O/2" course.  Courses that fail to provide this information will jeopardize their continuing status as "O" courses. 

All upper division oral intensive ("O") courses should state, in the syllabus, the following information for students:

	* The course number on the syllabus should carry the "O", as it does in the catalog (e.g. COMM 335O )

	* A minimum of 15% of the final grade should be based on the effectiveness of the oral presentation.

The type and size of the class will determine which of the following statements should also be included in the syllabus:

	For individual public presentation classes:
	Medium to large classes (12 or more students enrolled)

	* Each student will give 3 course-related presentations of at least 5 minutes duration, one of which involves an audience question/answer session afterward.

	Small class (12 students or less)

	* Each student will give either 2 course related presentations of 20 minutes duration or 3 presentations of 10 minutes duration. Question and answer session afterward for at least one.

	For group presentation classes:

	* Each student will give 2 course-related presentations that are integrated with the presentations of her/his group and are of at least 5 minutes duration.

	For the "O/2" designation:

	* Each student will give 2 course-related presentations of 5 minute duration, and 1 presentation of 8-10 minute duration.  The 10 minute presentation will be followed by a question/answer session.

ATTACHMENT 109/5
UAF Faculty Senate #109
May 6, 2002
SUBMITTED BY CORE REVIEW

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 to 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.

ATTACHMENT 109/6
UAF Faculty Senate #109
May 6, 2002
SUBMITTED BY GRADUATE ACADEMIC & ADVISORY COMMITTEE

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.

ATTACHMENT 109/7
UAF Faculty Senate #109
May 6, 2002
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY AFFAIRS

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.

ATTACHMENT 109/8
UAF Faculty Senate #109
May 6, 2002
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY AFFAIRS

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 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 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 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 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 will effect resolution within 5 class days of notification by the student.  The department head 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.

1.	This review is initiated by the student through a signed, written request to the department head 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 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 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, the Dean of the College will designate another department head 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 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]] REGISTRAR  within five days of the meeting.

			d.	The decision of the committee is final.

ATTACHMENT 109/9
UAF Faculty Senate #109
May 6, 2002
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY AFFAIRS

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.

ATTACHMENT 109/10
UAF Faculty Senate #109
May 6, 2002
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY APPEALS & OVERSIGHT

MOTION:
======

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.

ATTACHMENT 109/11
UAF Faculty Senate #109
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.  

ATTACHMENT 109/12
UAF Faculty Senate #109
May 6, 2002
SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE

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

 ATTACHMENT 109/13
UAF Faculty Senate #109
May 6, 2002
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY AFFAIRS

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate, upon recommendation of the Faculty Affairs Committee, moves to adopt the following procedure to establish a framework that will become a UAF policy governing approval of proposals and acceptance of contracts or grants for participation of UAF faculty and staff in sponsored research with particular concern for classified and proprietary research involving university-owned and/or university-operated facilities.

	EFFECTIVE:   Immediately
  
	RATIONALE:  Board of Regents policy P10.07.02 directs that 
		"All proposed sponsored projects will be reviewed for 
		constraints on disclosure and dissemination of the results 
		of the work" once UAF norms have been established and 
		that "After review of the proposed project and review of 
		the constraints on disclosure and dissemination of the 
		results of the work, the Chancellor or Chancellor's 
		designee may approve entering into contractual 
		agreements for classified and proprietary work under 
		governmental and private sponsorship". 

The following procedure provides for 
a.	Faculty input on review of policies related to classified and proprietary research and the design of a form to discover key information regarding any restrictions on access to or publication of the ensuing research.
b.	Administrative processing of proposals and contracts to ensure compliance with adopted policies.
c.	Interception and denial of approval for proposals or contracts that are in violation of university policy or norms.

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

I.	Preamble
	A.	Research concerns addressed by this motion.
1.	Sponsored research of an applied nature encompasses categories that may require some restriction on publication and/or restriction on access to data, and/or restriction on personnel and/or restriction on access to where the research is performed. Terms such as classified and proprietary may be used to describe these categories. For definitions please refer to the appendix of definitions. The purpose of this motion is to address university management of classified and proprietary research.
2.	Classified and proprietary research funding may arise by response to an announcement of opportunity or by negotiation with sponsors.
3.	For those that arise by negotiation there are often two phases, the first in which the idea for research is explored with potential partners and the second in which an application is filed with the sponsors.
4.	Procedures proposed for adoption through this motion need to provide for university approval and permit expeditious processing of the proposal.
	B.	Concerns of faculty and administration.
1.	Faculty should express the norms of acceptable research within the university.
2.	Freedom of research and university reputation should be safeguarded by processes of approval that control the development of areas of work not compatible with the security provisions or norms of the university.
	C.	University policy on applied research
1.	The University of Alaska Fairbanks, implementing Regents’ Policy P10.07.01 on the "Role of Research Scholarship and Creative Activity", "will foster an environment supportive of conducting research, scholarship, and creative activity and broadly disseminating its results in the tradition of academic freedom and its corresponding responsibilities. Publication and dissemination of the results of research projects will be accomplished without excessive or inappropriate prohibitions. Research techniques will not violate established professional ethics pertaining to the rights and welfare of human subjects or the infliction of pain or injury on animals".
2.	The University of Alaska Fairbanks, implementing Regents’ Policy P10.07.02 on Sponsored Projects Submittal and Acceptance”, recognizes that "sponsors may operate within a proprietary or classified environment while universities function on the principle of free inquiry and open expression", and accordingly, requires that any collaborative work with such sponsors "protect the basic tenets of universities".
3.	An advisory committee of faculty should provide a list of norms that protect the basic tenets of universities for the approval by the Faculty Senate and subsequent consideration by the Chancellor.
4.	The Office of Sponsored Programs should advise the Chancellor on the limits of security provisions to support classified or proprietary work.
5.	The Chancellor declares university policy on applied research.

II.	Faculty will help define university norms for classified and proprietary research.
A.	The Chancellor requests the Faculty Senate to appoint an advisory panel of faculty to prepare a list of norms for university research.
1.	The faculty panel should not exceed fifteen in number. It should have both bipartite and tripartite members and at least one representative from each School, College and Research Institute.
2.	The panel shall provide a list of norms describing faculty expectations on limitations of acceptable research within the university.
3.	The panel shall provide a list of questions with checkbox style answers designed to elicit information from authors of proposals facilitating the approval process.
B.	The Chancellor accepts or rejects the list of norms and questions.
1.	In the case that the list is rejected, the Chancellor will provide reasons to the panel and to the Faculty Senate and return the task to the panel for reconsideration.

III.	Stages for University Approval
	A.	Pre-proposal information to the Chancellor.
1.	Research administrators deliver a biannual report on long-term research plans.
2.	Chancellor advises on plans that appear to be inconsistent with university norms.
	B.	Approval of proposals.
1.	The Office of Sponsored Research works with the faculty panel (see II.A. above) to refine the checklist of questions to discover proposals in violation of university policy and norms.
2.	After approval by the Faculty Senate, the checklist is submitted for approval by the Chancellor.
3.	Proposals are submitted with the checklist completed and processed by staff of the Office of Sponsored Research. Proposals with an acceptable checklist receive approval for compliance with university policy on applied research.
4.	Those proposals with a checklist response in violation of university policy are returned to the authors.
5.	Those proposals that are awarded by the sponsors with restrictions or conditions in violation of university policy and norms will be declined, unless the sponsors agree to delete all restrictions or conditions that are in violation of university policy and norms.

IV.	Definitions 
A.	Classified research will include any research project entailing classification on the research process or research results, including imposition of restrictions on publication or access.
B.	Proprietary research shall be defined as "sponsored research for which the sponsor requires restriction of information about research in progress an/or a delay in publication in excess of three months.

V. 	Exclusions
A.	Faculty members may perform personal consulting outside their faculty workload in classified research under the existing rules and regulations of the university and following the normal campus approval procedures.
B.	Personal consulting conducted in non-university facilities is excluded from these procedures.
C.	A principal investigator involved in proprietary research to protect his or her inventions or discoveries up to the point of patented or copyrighted publication except as provided for by university policy governing intellectual property.
D.	Personal consulting in classified or proprietary research in university-owned and/or university-operated facilities will need to be evaluated.
E.	While classified research shall be included in a faculty member's annual workload assignment, classified research results that are not published in the open literature shall not qualify as a portion of faculty research workload normally subject to peer review processes for tenure, promotion, or post-tenure review.
F.	Undergraduate students shall not, except in the rare case approved by the UAF Chancellor with the concurrence of the UAF Provost, participate in classified research.
G.	Theses and dissertations that cannot be published or disseminated because of classified or proprietary research will not be accepted in satisfaction of degree requirements, therefore, graduate students should be fully informed before participating in classified and proprietary research.  

ATTACHMENT 109/14
UAF Faculty Senate #109
May 6, 2002
SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS

Curricular Affairs Committee Annual Report - Ron Illingworth, Chair

The Curricular Affairs committee held audioconferenced meetings 14 times this year.  Members present Mike Hannigan,  Carol Barnhardt,  James Gladden,  Gary Holton,  Pete Pinney,  Eduard Zilberkant, Ron Illingworth, Ann Tremarello, Gayle Gregory, Wanda Martin, Britt Arnesen, and David Woodall.

All meetings are audioconferenced as well as face to face as one member of the committee is from outside Fairbanks.

The committee addressed a spectrum of issues ranging from new degree approvals to academic policy changes, reinterpretation, and reaffirmations.  Additionally, the committee sponsored several open forum discussions on a new degree proposal and a new major proposal.  Ultimately, these two proposals were returned to their parent college for additional work.  Examples of activities include the following:

•	With GAAC, removed the limitation on the number of correspondence courses which may be used towards a student's degree completion.
•	Approved changes to the AAS degree requirements
•	Approved changes to the Certificate requirements
•	With GAAC, approved the inclusion of changes to several degree and course approval formats
•	Approved the deletion of the B.ED degree
•	Approved a cross-MAU agreement on acceptance of courses taught as part of a student's degree when the degree is housed at one MAU but the courses are taught at another MAU.
•	Discussed alternative admissions status for students to include changing the name of "Undeclared" to "General Studies" and the creation of a new category of "Pre-majors" for students not fully prepared to enter into the baccalaureate degree.

The committee also approved several course equivalency decisions for non-traditional students seeking recognition of their external education.

Topics continued for future resolution include those related to the expanding role of distance delivery at UAF.  Some of the issues raised cross into the Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee, Faculty Affairs, and to the Unions and will require more extensive discussion than was available for them this year.  Issues continued until next year include the following:

	1.	Credit equivalency standards for courses not taught synchronously
	2.	Foreign Language Advanced Placement credit option
	3.	Changes to Certificates to incorporate accreditation standards in the areas of communication, computation, and human relations.
	4.	Review of administrative problems related to implementation of prerequisite checking  and registration on Banner as they connect to "holds" and "blocks".

The chair would like to thank all the members of this committee for their valuable time, effort and dedication to service.  Without you, there would have been no actions to report.  Thank you.

Respectfully submitted, Ronald D. Illingworth

ATTACHMENT 109/15
UAF Faculty Senate #109
May 6, 2002
SUBMITTED BY GRADUATE ACADEMIC & ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee (GAAC) Meeting 
April 11, 2002, 1-3 pm, Runcorn Conference Room 300 NSF
Gayle Gregory, Dennis Stephens, Lillian Corti, Susan Henrichs, Maribeth Murray, Colin Read, Ed Bueler, George Minassian, Hajo Eicken
Guests: Silke Schiewer, Bob Perkins, Brenton Watkins, Larry Duffy, Cathy Cahill

I. Old Business
(1) ENVE course applications and program change
Silke Schiewer and Bob Perkins provided background information on three new courses in Environmental Engineering and an associated program change, all of which are part of an effort to increase enrollment in this sector and consolidate the program with the arrival of 3 new faculty members. The course requests and program change were approved unanimously.

(2) Atmospheric Science, program changes
Brenton Watkins summarized concerns within the Physics Dep't. regarding unstacking of ATM courses that are part of the undergraduate Applied Physics major in Atmospheric Science.  While the high fraction of stacked courses within the required course load for ATM was a concern to the committee (as outlined in previous meeting reports), it was agreed that this issue requires more detailed attention throughout campus and that in the interest of students enrolled in the programs affected, the committee would be prepared to approve the requested changes with only one ATM/CHEM course unstacked.  However, the different expectations and requirements for the 400/600 levels need to be clearly defined (with an eventual reflection in the catalog) in all cases, to be evaluated by the next meeting.  Committee members and Dept's. affected by the changes are now positively inclined towards the program revisions and the committee will come to a decision at the next meeting.  Also, if approved, a memo would be submitted to the Provost/Dean concerning the issue of stacked courses in the program, requesting that progress on the issue be considered in the next program evaluation.

(3) Stacking of courses
Based on the discussions and cases considered this semester, the GAAC sees the need for a more rigorous tracking and evaluation of stacked courses.  On the one hand, an institution the size of UAF may always have to rely on course stacking as the only feasible means of balancing academic and resource constraints.  Furthermore, undergraduate students can substantially benefit from graduate course attendance.  On the other hand, extensive stacking of course may compromise the academic standard of graduate courses and needs to be scrutinized closely at the time of program modification and later evaluation.  To bring this issue to the attention of faculty, a discussion item (limits on number of stacked courses in program, more detailed review criteria, substantiation of cross-fertilization between 400 and 600 level portion etc.) will be prepared for the next faculty senate meeting.  
The committee agreed that for outstanding senior undergraduate students the possibility of enrolling in 600 level classes (with proper identification in transcripts) can be highly beneficial but is currently discouraged by much higher fees of graduate vs. undergraduate courses.  The Dean of the Graduate School had offered relief on this issue and the committee will follow up on this.

The committee also discussed the issue of graduate students reducing their workload through attendance of the undergraduate segment of stacked courses, which appears to be a problem (triggered by both financial and academic motives) in some programs and may have to be revisited in the future.

(3) Miscellaneous
The Curricular Affairs Committee consents with the GAAC's assessment and proposed plan for revision/consolidation of the definitions of academic, scholastic and good standing, provided that this does not affect standards enforced by the NCAA.  Ron Gatterdam as NCAA Campus Representative indicated that this was not a problem and a motion will be drafted for the next meeting.

II. New Business

(1) Course/program change requests
The committee unanimously approved the following program/course requests:

#1: Drop COMM 631
#2: Program Change MA Prof. Comm.
#5 ENVE 651
#6 ENVE 652
#8 ENVE 653
#9: Program Change MS Env. Eng./Quality Science

(2) Miscellaneous
- The idea for nominations of Graduate Student Senators from within the Graduate Student Body and subsequent appointment as (non-voting) Graduate Student Senators was met with approval.
- The GAAC had been asked by the Provost to consider the pros and cons of a move of the Graduate School Office from Signers' Hall to Bunnell.  The committee mostly felt that providing the Graduate School with more adequate quarters in a prime location would serve well in continuing recognition of the vital importance of graduate students within the fabric of UAF.  It was suggested to underscore this importance by allocating space for a Graduate Student Senators' or Graduate Student Organization Office on the premises.

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

Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee (GAAC) Meeting 
April 25, 2002, 2-3 pm, IARC 417

Present: Gayle Gregory, Susan Henrichs, Maribeth Murray, Lillian Corti, Joe Kan, Dennis Stephens, Chuen-Sen Lin, Ed Bueler, Colin Read, Hajo Eicken
Guests: Kristy Long, Tony Gasparro

I. Old Business

(1) Atmospheric Science, program changes etc. (Susan Henrichs)
The committee unanimously approved the major program change and the associated course changes part of the reorganization of the Atmospheric Sciences Program:
CHANGE COURSE:  ATM 401/601 (#56)
CHANGE COURSE:  ATM 445/645 (#57)
CHANGE COURSE:  ATM 644 (#22)
CHANGE COURSE:  ATM 646 (#23)
CHANGE COURSE:  CHEM 606 (#24)
CHANGE COURSE:  CHEM 608 (#25)
PROGRAM CHANGE:  MS, Ph.D., Atmospheric Sciences (#26)

(2) Motion to update definition of academic/scholastic standing (Ed Bueler)
A motion amending the definition of scholastic and academic standing was approved to be forwarded to the Faculty Senate (see attachment). 

(3) Discussion item/motion on stacked courses (Colin Read)
Pending a decision about potential reduction of fees for undergraduates taking graduate courses (currently considered further by the Provost), a recommendation regarding the enrollment of graduate students in undergraduate courses is not possible.  In order to leave options open for students intent on furthering their horizon without full commitment, a recommendation could be made not to encourage this option "under normal circumstances". 

The drafting of a discussion item for the Senate Floor, e.g. a suggestion of limiting the total number of stacked courses - under normal circumstances - to e.g., ≤50 % of the total number of graduate course credits will be taken up again in the next academic year.

(4) Graduate requirements for advancement to candidacy 
Following a suggestion on further improvement of the wording in p. 41 of the catalog (Master's Degree; item (1) completed at least 9 semester credits), the committee will work on a motion for the next session to include a reference to successful completion of courses (e.g., by adding "excluding deficiencies"). 

II. New Business

(1) Course/program change requests
The following course/program change requests were approved:
New Course: PSY 636 Program Evaluation (#3)
Program Change: Community Psychology (#4)

(2) Changes in Thesis Workbook
The changes proposed to the thesis workbook (acceptance of faxed signatures) were evaluated and the committee sees no problem with these. 

(3) Misc.
Peace Corps Master's proposal, School of Agriculture and Land Resources Management: As with the Rural Development proposal, the committee considers this a timely and desirable addition to UAF's offerings.  Once implemented, a reference should be included in the catalog (requiring a change request to the GAAC) to advise students of this opportunity, possibly in conjunction with other programs, highlighting the entire scope of programs offering this option.  An extension into national programs (VISTA/Americorps) might also be considered, in particular in light of the infrastructural needs of rural Alaskans.

ATTACHMENT 109/16
UAF Faculty Senate #109
May 6, 2002
SUBMITTED BY graduate academic & advisory Committee

Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee (GAAC)
Final report, Academic Year 2001/2002

Committee members: 
Sandra Bond, Ed Bueler, Lillian Corti, Hajo Eicken (Chair), Gayle Gregory, Susan Henrichs, Joe Kan, Chuen-Sen Lin, George Minassian, Maribeth Murray, Colin Read, Eric Rexstad, Elke Richmond, Madeline Schatz, Dennis Stephens, Norm Swazo, Ann Tremarello

The GAAC index:
• Number of GAAC meetings during academic year 2001/02: 14
• Number of graduate course and program change requests received: 64
• Number of requests for new graduate programs received: 2 (M. Software Eng., M. Applied Linguistics)
• Average number of voting members present at meetings: 7
• Average number of guests present at meetings: 3
• Number of motions submitted to Faculty Senate (excl. new programs): 5
• Number of non-dairy creamer units (12 oz.) consumed with coffee taken at meetings: <1
• Number of non-dairy creamer units (12 oz.) that could be purchased with expenses incurred for total number of work hours that committee members spent in GAAC meetings this year: >4000
• Number of times the phrase "Atmospheric [Physics/Chemistry/Science]" appears in meeting reports: 21
• Number of times the phrase "graduate student(s)" appears in meeting reports: 11
• Rank of "Sheri" among names uttered by clueless GAAC Chair in conjunction with statement "I have to ask … about that": 1

Motions forwarded to Faculty Senate (excl. new programs): 
(1) Motion to revise graduate degree program course restrictions
(2) Motion to amend new course/course change forms
(3) Motion to introduce Resource Commitment Form (RCF) for new degree program applications
(4) Motion to amend Master's Degree residency requirements
(5) Motion to amend Graduate Academic Regulations with regards to Scholastic and Good Standing

Summary of major items:
	In this year's GAAC business a number of recurring themes could be identified. 

(1) Incomplete research into university-wide impacts and specific resource requirements associated with course or program changes and introduction of new programs
	While the committee realizes that taking the initiative, pursuing the preparatory research and paperwork and then actually making the commitment of developing a new course, or program or implementing changes are all major and highly laudatory actions, duplication of efforts or lack of coordination between different programs is something that needs to be considered seriously.  From an academic perspective, one would assume that competition for student credit hours may actually help improve offerings and may aid in weeding out non-competitive courses in the long run (although even graduate students voting with their feet may not always result in the offering of the highest quality winning out, and the GAAC takes both these aspects into consideration).  Nevertheless, it's a worthwhile question to ask whether UAF as well as the entire UA system can actually afford this approach considering limitations in resources and potential clients.  The proliferation of distance/on-line delivered courses may actually compound this problem (see below), while at the same time giving UAF (and UA) an edge over other universities.  Part of this edge, though, is the element of synergy that we can bring into our course offerings and the GAAC strongly encourages proponents for new courses and programs to take this into consideration and capitalizing on it.  To help with that, the committee has drafted a motion (passed by the Faculty Senate) in collaboration with the Curricular Affairs Committee to amend the Format 1 and 2 forms with a question asking for specific positive or negative impacts on other programs or departments.
	While this observation is trivial as such, it is nevertheless noteworthy that in many cases, a lack of time on the part of the faculty involved may have been underlying many of these incomplete or unsatisfactory applications.  One example, for instance, involved an overall meritorious and enterprising introduction of a bundle of new courses that could well serve the community which precipitated discussions at two GAAC meetings and correspondence that - if added up - would have by far surpassed the amount of person hours invested by the program proponents and others impacted - had they ever gotten together and actually talked and negotiated about the proposals in the first place. 
	Another issue that may have similar causes, is the fact that the GAAC routinely (i.e. in all cases it addressed this year and in a majority last year) finds new program proposals submitted without adequate resources, requiring additional memos going back and forth to ensure a viable program.   The GAAC overwhelmingly felt that ensurance of program viability is a key component of program evaluation, and in collaboration with the Curricular Affairs Committee and others has drafted a motion (passed by Faculty Senate) implementing a Resource Commitment Form (RCF) to be signed by proponents and the respective Dean in order to ensure full awareness and a corresponding record.

(2) Consideration of issues raised at course/program introduction during later evaluations
	Considering the amount of time and effort invested by the Committee into evaluation and positive critique of proposals, one wonders to what an extent the concerns and suggestions raised at the outset of new implementations are being revisited and followed-up on during later program evaluations.  Here it might be worthwhile to specifically provide a list of potential concerns to later evaluators from the GAAC (which is currently part of the GAAC meeting reports but might be more accessible in a different form).
 
(3) Distance (in particular on-line) delivery of courses
	Clearly, on-line delivery of courses is an ever growing component of UAF's mission and recent developments, such as the on-line program in Justice Administration have pointed out interesting possibilities and inherent limitations.  The system-wide committee under Mike Sfraga is quite active in regards to following these developments and the GAAC should be in one way or another linked into these activities.  However, one of the strengths of on-line delivery is its highly flexible character and an informal survey by the committee established that there is much more going on with regards to on-line delivery than caught by, e.g., the Registrar's Office upon which the system-wide implementation of a compilation of on-line curricula is based.  Considering the rapid development in this area, the GAAC sees the need for implementing mechanisms of quality control, in particular to ensure a smooth transition from classroom to on-line delivery of courses, which currently does not require submission of a formal request.  Similarly, the current make-up of student evaluation forms and other means of quality control does not appear to take into account the specific strengths and weaknesses of on-line delivery.  This clearly is an issue to follow up on.
	Along the same lines, the question of what exactly constitutes the graduate experience for different programs and disciplines, was raised by several commentators during the course of this discussion.  While the GAAC drafted a motion (that was passed by the Faculty Senate) that harmonized Master's and Ph.D. residency requirements, removing a 9 credit on-campus requirement for the former, ultimately it is the Departments and Programs that have control over how they would like to see graduate students contribute to and benefit from the vast potential inherent in a more traditional (face-to-face) campus.  Considering that graduate students are one of the pillars of a research university and university research in general, this is an important issue that needs to be discussed and followed up on. 

(4) Atmospheric Physics and Atmospheric Sciences
	The GAAC found itself as something of a judge of the peace in seeing the well established and strong Atmospheric Science components of the Physics graduate program as well as the budding Atmospheric Sciences program (both active and promising) on their respective, though hopefully not too separated ways.  Ultimately and despite all the difficulties resulting out of such an intricate extrication, this appears to have been a rewarding experience for all involved in the sense that it demonstrated a solidarity and spirit of enterprise and awareness of UAF's role and mission that went beyond disciplinary and other boundaries.  The proponents of the courses and program changes (whether thwarted or successful) are commended on their help in this process.
	Nevertheless, if there is one item to take out of this, it would be that one of UAF's unique strengths is the degree of truly Alaskan entrepreneurship, solidarity and interconnectedness that could be crucial in developing and strengthening attractive graduate programs that transcend traditional disciplinary boundaries.  This cannot wholly be achieved by administrative (or policy induced) fiat but requires a certain degree of activity and possibly even selflessness at the Department and faculty level that could still be developed to greater depths in some areas.  Here, some recently implemented programs (without involvement of the GAAC as they rely on existing courses and no program changes) may actually be pointing the way.

Open ends:

(1) Distance (in particular on-line) delivery of courses
	Here, a number of loose ends remain and if the valiant effort of the Curricular Affairs Committee in implementing a joint CAC-GAAC working group on " Technology-enhanced education" is successful, there is a number of issues that that group might address, some of which are outlined in Item (3) in the Section above.

(2) Joint Ph.D. programs and collaboration within the UA system
	The Graduate School through Dean Kan and an ad-hoc committee have been proactive in fostering a discussion of the possibilities of a joint Ph.D. between UAF and UAA.  Based on discussion and several open meetings, the Dean proposes to close the discussion on the Joint Ph.D. model and move forward with a Collaborative Ph.D. model.  Clearly, from a perspective of limited state resources as well as the potential for synergy, one would like to see more collaboration between the individual MAUs in this regard and the GAAC might be able to help with respect to policies etc.  One point that was brought up in this context is the question to what an extent a limit of 50% on transferrable credits within the system is actually conducive to collaboration and mobility within the state.  Clearly, though, graduate and in particular Ph.D. programs can only grow out of a corresponding "culture" and some of the business addressed by the GAAC this year indicates that even at an institution with the strength and tradition of Ph.D. level graduate programs such as UAF, the complexity and challenge of the associated tasks and problems should not be underestimated.

(3) Stacked courses
	While the committee realizes that for a university the size of UAF stacking of 400/600 level courses is often the only way of balancing teaching resources and student interests, we are nevertheless concerned about the fact that currently there is no mechanism in place to check this balance, other than comments made during the course of new course/ program approvals.  Considering that the committee has been faced with graduate program change requests which in one case would have made all of the half dozen courses that are required core courses stacked (and other programs were likewise heavily relying on stacking), it is legitimate to inquire about solid and well-publicized standards that help faculty and students to fully and properly delineate the different expectations and components of the 400 and the 600 level portion of these courses.  Research into older files as well as new applications suggest that this is not always the case.  Here, informal discussion and mentoring at faculty level might help address some issues, but the committee has also considered forwarding a discussion item to the Senate on limiting the amount of stacked courses that can be part of a degree program's required courses or of the courses counting towards a degree.

(4) Graduate enrollment in undergraduate courses and vice-versa
	Pending a decision about potential reduction of fees for undergraduates taking graduate courses (currently considered further by the Provost after discussion within GAAC), the committee may want to consider a recommendation regarding the enrollment of graduate students in undergraduate courses and vice-versa. 

(5) Graduate requirements for advancement to candidacy 
	Following a suggestion on further improvement of the wording in p. 41 of the catalog (Master's Degree; item (1) completed at least 9 semester credits), the committee will work on a motion for the next session to include a reference to successful completion of courses (e.g., by adding "excluding deficiencies"). 

ATTACHMENT 109/17
UAF Faculty Senate #109
May 6, 2002
SUBMITTED BY DEVELOPMENTAL STUDIES

Developmental Studies Committee - 2001-2002 Annual Report

Accomplishments:

Accreditation and Outside Review:

Fall Semester, 2001, the committee prepared for the visit of the accreditation team.  Although Developmental Studies was included in the self-study, the accreditation team did not have the opportunity to make an in-depth analysis of the issues facing developmental programs.  To address this, and to follow up on plans and initiatives proposed by this committee and its members in the past, we invited a team of three reviewers to visit the sites where developmental courses are taught and to report back to the committee, the CRA Dean, the Chancellor, and the Provost.  This assessment visit was proposed by Jake Poole, Director, TVC, and was funded through CRA.

The site visit by Hunter Boylan, David Caverly, and Irene Doo, took place April 2-5.  The team initially split up for individual visits to Kuskokwim, Northwest, Chukchi, and Bristol Bay, then spent two days in Fairbanks visiting the main Fairbanks campus, Tanana Valley Campus, and Interior-Aleutians Campus.  While on the visits, the reviewers spoke to faculty and administrators, visited classes, and visited student support areas such as Rural Student Services, Disability Services, and the Advising Center, among others.  They finished their visit by meeting with the entire Developmental Studies Committee, then meeting with the Chancellor, the Provost, the CRA Dean, and Jake Poole, TVC Director.

The team has promised to write up a report by mid-May.  The suggestions made in this report will form the bulk of our committee activities during the coming year.

FY 03 and 04 Initiatives--Student Learning Center:

The FY03 initiative, in its final version, will be used for planning for the following year (FY04) and to hire a Student Learning Center coordinator.  We have also put in an initiative for the FY04 cycle to implement the planning done under the FY03 initiative.  At this point, funding for these initiatives is still pending approval from the legislature.

Ongoing Issues:

It is our hope that the outside reviewers' report, when it arrives, will address a number of our ongoing issues and concerns, including forming or strengthening a Developmental departmental structure which includes faculty at all campuses, increasing the number of tenure-track positions and thus the stability and professional standing of the program, developing more effective methods of assessment and placement, increasing the visibility of our programs to students and colleagues--which includes designated locations for developmental programs at each campus,  and increasing institutional support and commitment to developmental studies programs.

Thanks, all, for a great year!

Jane Weber and Cindy Hardy, Co-Chairs

ATTACHMENT 109/18
UAF Faculty Senate #109
May 6, 2002
SUBMITTED BY faculty appeals & oversight

Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee -  Annual Report

        The committee was given the task of drawing up a policy or procedure for censuring administrators.  The committee found its task very challenging since we had few guidelines, but, after much discussion, we drafted a motion for submission to the Faculty Senate.  If the Faculty Senate deems it necessary, the Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee can complete necessary changes next year.

This report had been submitted by chair of the Committee
Victoria Joan Moessner

ATTACHMENT 109/19
UAF Faculty Senate #109
May 6, 2002
SUBMITTED BY faculty development, assessment, & improvement

Faculty Development, Assessment, & Improvement Meeting
4-23-02

I.  Call meeting to order at 2:35 p.m.  Accept minutes of 3-26-02.
Present:  Abel Bult, Channon Price, Ann Wilson, Joy Morrison, Linda Curda and Debi McLean.  
Guest:  Provost Reichardt  
Members absent:  Roger Norris-Tull, Tom Robinson

II. Old business

Provost Reichardt was invited to clarify several issues:

a.  Issues of tenure and promotion - Even though there is no definition of early tenure nor are there any restrictions on applying for early tenure, an important issue for faculty at UAF is the trend for 4th year tenure.  Faculty need to grapple with whether or not they want to see most assistant professors apply after 4 years.  One important clarification in the process is that if a faculty member applies for early promotion and tenure (i.e., during 4th year comprehensive review) and is denied tenure, the next opportunity to submit a file would be the mandatory year.  Recommendations: 1) bring the issue back for faculty discussion, 2) reiterate the value of the 4th year comprehensive review, 3) encourage the unit level reviews to reestablish the patterns of tenure (i.e., time commitment, commitment to University and unit mission, contributions to university, sustainable track record).  Unit criteria is clearly an important component of the tenure process and Faculty Senate should encourage each unit to establish their criteria.

b.  Assessment and professional development - Discussion of Jin Brown's responsibilities which involve development of program assessment planning schedule, assessment of core curriculum courses, and assisting units to evaluate degree outcomes.  Several ways to tie faculty development efforts to evaluation were discussed: 1) attendance at teaching conferences for faculty with highly developed skills as well as those who need development, 2) on a volunteer basis, assistance to faculty after non-promotion reviews (4th year and post-tenure), and 3) a mandated post-tenure development plan decided upon by faculty member and dean (as required).

c.  Recommendations from NW Accreditation regarding faculty handbook - Hild Peters is working with other faculty and staff pieces of the handbook (table of contents and links to proper sites).  Some recommendations tie faculty development to evaluation and examine the role of a central faculty development office.

d.  Other old business - Discussion of motion to Faculty Senate.  Administrative Committee suggestions (budget) and Senate proposed changes (Provost's Council explore the issue).  It was reported that there was not much discussion regarding the issue on the faculty floor.  Although steps are being taken to house a Faculty Development Center next year, the Committee would like to have further discussion with the Senate.  Joy Morrison will be a guest speaker to provide background, vision and other information.

II. New business - Joy discussed development of a model using faculty to help other faculty to improve instruction and instructional technology

III. Adjourn - last meeting  - Have a great summer!

ATTACHMENT 109/20
UAF Faculty Senate #109
May 6, 2002
SUBMITTED BY faculty development, assessment, & improvement

Annual report of Faculty Development, Assessment and Improvement Committee 
Submitted by D. McLean
April 30, 2002

Members and affiliation:

George Charles, CLA
Channon Price, CSEM
Debi McLean-Nelson, SOED (chair)
Joy Morrison, Provost's Assoc for Fac Dev
E. Tom Robinson, SOM
Ann Wilson, CRA  
Abel Bult, CSEM
Linda Curda, CRA
Roger Norris-Tull, SOED

The FDAI held audioconferenced meetings once a month for a total of 9 meetings.  Faculty development topics of discussion included:

1.	issues of early promotion and tenure 
2.	importance of unit criteria 
3.	Needs Assessment for Faculty Development survey
4.	development of a Faculty Development Learning/Center
5.	visit by Dan Wheeler and discussion of Faculty Development Needs Report
6.	need to tie faculty development to assessment/evaluation
7.	other methods of evaluating faculty (i.e., evaluation of teaching or syllabus)  
8.	discussion of UAF Faculty Handbook

ATTACHMENT 109/21
UAF Faculty Senate #109
May 6, 2002
SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE

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)
	Ron Illingworth, CRA (03)
	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)
	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)
	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)
	vacant, 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)

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 (03)
	SOM (04)

Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement 
	Abel Bult, CSEM (03)
	Gerald Berman, CLA (04)
	Linda Curda, CRA (04)
	Paul McCarthy, CSEM (04)
	Deborah McLean-Nelson, SOEd. (04)
	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)
	  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

ATTACHMENT 109/22
UAF Faculty Senate #109
May 6, 2002
SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE

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 

ATTACHMENT 109/23
UAF Faculty Senate #109
May 6, 2002
SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE

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.