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 #110
Monday, September 23, 2002
1:00 p.m. - 3:15 p.m.
Wood Center Carol Brown Ballroom

1:00	I	Call to Order – Godwin Chukwu      			  5 Min.
		A.	Roll Call
		B.	Approval of Minutes to Meeting #109
		C.	Adoption of Agenda

1:05	II	Status of Chancellor's Office Actions 		  5 Min.
	A.	Motions Approved:
		1.	Motion to approve the M.A. degree program 
			in Applied Linguistics.
		2.	Motion to approve the list of the 2001-2002 
			degree candidates.
		3.	Motion to approved "W" syllabus requirements.
		4.	Motion to amend the definition of Graduate 
			Scholastic and Academic standing.
		5.	Motion to amend the Appeals Policy for Academic 
			Decisions Other Than Assignment of Grades.
		6.	Motion to amend the Grade Appeals Policy.
		7.	Motion to amend the UAF Regulations for Emeritus 
			Status.
		8.	Motion to amend the UAF Policies & Regulations for 
			the Appointment and Evaluation of Faculty.
		9.	Motion to add a "pre-major" admission status to 
			the baccalaureate degree.
	B.	Motion Denied: 
		10.	Motion to suspend approval of all classified 
			research.
	C.	Motions Approved by the Administrative Committee and 
		the Chancellor:  
		11.	Motion to amend the UAF Policies & Regulations for 
			the Appointment and Evaluation of Faculty.
	D.	Motions Pending:  none

1:10	III	A.	Remarks by Chancellor M. Lind   		10 Min.
		B.	Remarks by Provost P. Reichardt		10 Min.
			Summary Report of 2001/2002 Faculty Reviews
			(Attachment 110/1)
		C.	Guest Speaker - Claudia Clark, Dean   	10 Min.
			Enrollment Management

1:40	IV	Governance Reports
	A.	President-Elect's Comments - P. Pinney		  5 Min.
	B.	President's Report - G. Chukwu     			  5 Min.
	C.	Staff Council - L. Ledlow 				  5 Min.
	D.	ASUAF -D. Miller / GSO - 		    		  5 Min.

2:00	V	New Business						10 Min.
	A.	Motion to confirm membership on the Ad Hoc 
		Committee on Unit Criteria, submitted by Administrative 
		Committee (Attachment 110/2) 

2:10	VI	Discussion Items   					  30 Min.
	A.	Discussion of KUAC Gubernatorial debate between 
		Fran Ulmer and Frank Murkowski on October 17th.  
	B.	Discussion on Classified Research
	C.	Discussion on Recognition of Outstanding Senators
	D.	Discussion on Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Advising

2:40	VII	Public Comments/Questions 				  5 Min.

2:45		***BREAK***						10 Min.

2:55	VIII	Committee Reports 					15 Min.
	A.	Curricular Affairs - R. Illingworth
	B.	Faculty Affairs - P. McRoy (Attachment 110/3)
	C.	Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee – M. Murray
		(Attachment 110/4)
	D.	Core Review - D. Schamel (Attachment 110/5)
	E.	Curriculum Review - G. Holton
	F.	Developmental Studies - J. Weber
	G.	Faculty Appeals & Oversight - 
	H.	Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement – 

3:10	IX	Members' Comments/Questions			  5 Min.

3:15	X	Adjournment

***************************
ATTACHMENT 110/1
UAF Faculty Senate #110
SEPTEMBER 23, 2002

SUMMARY REPORT OF 2001/2002 FACULTY REVIEWS

Paul Reichardt

Promotion/Mandatory Tenure and Mandatory Tenure Only

11 files; 11 – yes; yes at all stages of review for all 11

Promotion/Early Tenure and Early Tenure Only

17 files; 13 – yes; 4 – withdrawn

Early Tenure:  yes at all stages for all 3 files

Promotion Early Tenure, <4 yrs:	1 yes at all stages
				3 yes at peer and dean levels, no at campus 
				committee and provost levels; withdrawn

Promotion/Early Tenure, 4 yrs: 	3 yes at all levels
				1 yes at peer and dean/director, no at campus
				committee and provost; withdrawn*

Promotion/Early Tenure, 5/6 yrs:	2 yes at all levels
				2 no only at campus committee**

*non-precedent setting MOU with UNAC
**committee vote 3-4 in both cases

Promotion

15 files; 12 – yes, 3 – withdrawn

10 yes at all stages of review
1 yes at all stages except Provost 
1 yes at peer and Chancellor levels
1 yes at peer and dean levels; no at campus committee and provost; withdrawn
2 yes at peer level; no at dean, campus committee and provost; withdrawn

candidate supplied additional information before Chancellor’s review
Chancellor’s decision following formal appeal process

Fourth Year Comprehensive Review

13 files

11 "satisfactory progress" at all stages of review
2 "unsatisfactory progress" at all stages of review

Post-Tenure Review

No files submitted (nor required)

A total of 43 files were reviewed in the 2001/2002 promotion/tenure process.  Promotion and/or tenure was awarded in 36 cases; the other 7 files were withdrawn prior to the Chancellor's review.  In 35 cases, the recommendation/ decision was "yes" at every level of review.   In only three cases was there a negative recommendation at the peer and/or dean level.  There were four cases in which the Provost's recommendation (3) and/or the Chancellor’s decision (3) differed from the recommendation of the campus-wide committee.

Observations:

1.	About 40% of last year’s files were for “early” promotion/tenure or "early" tenure.  About half (8) were from Assistant Professors applying at the beginning of their 2nd, 3rd or 4th years; half of them were successful. The rest of the applicants (all successful) were about evenly split between Assistant Professors who had received very favorable 4th Year Comprehensive Reviews and recently hired Associate Professors and Professors who chose not to wait until their mandatory years.

I believe the campus-wide committee did an excellent job in reviewing this set of files and making their recommendations.  Of course, there is room for professional differences of opinion on individual cases; and the committee certainly took its share of shots in this respect.  However, I think the committee made a long-term contribution to UAF by fully discussing the "early tenure" situation, developing an understanding on how they would approach these cases, and then consistently apply promotion/tenure criteria to the individual cases.  I commend them for their approach to these cases, for their rigorous reviews, and for their conscientious attempts to distinguish between early tenure candidates who have met the tenure criteria and those who are simply making good progress toward tenure.

2.	Clearly the most difficult question in the early tenure cases is, "How does UAF count my previous experience?"  While I doubt if the faculty can come up with a clear, consensus-based answer (and also question whether there is a simple, universal answer), I do think it  is a question that is worthy of faculty discussion.

3.	In my view the most problematic part of our promotion/tenure process is the general lack of appropriate unit criteria at the department/ school/college level.  In the absence of such criteria, committees and administrators must rely on UAF criteria.  In practice, reviewers (especially faculty committees) find this to be difficult; and disappointed candidates often find rationales based on the UAF criteria to be vague and hard to understand.

4.	Reviewers of files (both administrators and members of faculty committees) should be reminded of a few details:

a.	Any "promises" made by deans, directors or department chairs at time of hire should be addressed by both the candidate (in her/his file) and by reviewers (especially by deans, directors, department chairs).
b.	The applicable UAF Faculty Policies and Regulations for the FY03 process are the 2002 version for faculty represented by UNAC and the 1997 version for faculty represented by ACCFT.
c.	Peer committees need clear written rules on size, identities of individual members, eligibility for membership, and procedures.  Then they need to strictly follow their rules.
d.	Unit level peer committees have the responsibility to carry out and report an "in depth" analysis of each candidate's performance.  Analysis, not data summary, should be their focus. Examples might be: analysis of IAS results to determine why "Dr. Smith" is a good teacher rather than statistical analysis of "average IAS score" for entry number three; analysis of multiple authorship and significance of "Dr. Smith's" key publications rather than simply reporting the number of peer-reviewed articles that Smith has published.
e.	Unit Criteria supplement, but do not replace, UAF criteria

5.	Deans should describe the process used to select the two external reviewers designated by the dean.  All reviewers of the file need to know if these two individuals were suggested by the candidate or chosen by another method.

6.	The Faculty Senate should put in place a process for reminding units when their unit criteria need reaffirmation or change (See UAF Faculty Senate Regulation III.E).

**************************
ATTACHMENT 110/2
UAF Faculty Senate #110
SEPTEMBER 23, 2002
SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to confirm the membership on the Ad Hoc Committee on Unit Criteria consisting of one member from each of the following committees:  Curricular Affairs; Faculty Affairs; Faculty Development, Assessment, and Improvement; and Faculty Appeals & Oversight Committee.

	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately

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

AD HOC COMMITTEE ON UNIT CRITERIA

Curricular Affairs - Gary Holton
Faculty Affairs - Dan Odess
Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement - Abel Bult-Ito
Faculty Appeals & Oversight - Julie Riley

**************************
ATTACHMENT 110/3
UAF Faculty Senate #110
SEPTEMBER 23, 2002
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY AFFAIRS

FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE 

Report of Meeting
Monday, 9 Sep 2002/ 3PM
Runcorn Conference Room

Committee Members Present:  Mark Box, CLA; Abel Bult-Ito, CSEM; Joan Leguard, CLA; Bret Luick, CRA; Jennifer McBeath, SALARM; Peter McRoy, SFOS; Dan Odess, CLA; Shirish Patil, SME; Bret Simmons, SOM

Meetings for fall semester for Faculty Affairs:  second Monday of the month, 3:00 PM, Runcorn Conference Room, 300 NSF.

As a first order of business the committee affirmed the election of McRoy as chair and elected Abel Bult-Ito as co-chair.

Old Business from last semester: 
The following items from last semester remain on the Faculty Affairs agenda. The FA Committee discussed the items and reviewed their status.

1. Classified Research 
The motion on this policy prepared by Faculty Affairs Committee last semester was defeated on the floor of the Senate.  In response Senate President Chukwu appointed a new committee to prepare a policy statement. When ready, the motion from the ad hoc committee will be sent to the Senate through Faculty Affairs. J. Leguard suggested that UNAC should be consulted for their views on Classified Research. P. McRoy will notify Pete Pinney (chair of the new committee) about UNAC concerns.

2. Senate organization: Bylaw revision
The purpose of this is to revise the order of business for Senate and Administrative committee meetings. P. McRoy proposed this item last year to increase the dialogue in Senate meetings and to permit introduction of new business from the floor. Such actions occurred in the last meeting of the Senate last semester so it is possible that no revision is needed. The Administration Committee should clarify the order and procedures for Senate business.

3. Parking: status and function of the advisory committee
	The committee discussed problems and possible revisions to the existing parking committee.  The perceived need is for a motion to reestablish the Parking Advisory Committee as a committee of the UAF Governance Coordinating Committee S. Patil and P. McRoy will do some investigation of current practices by the existing committee.

4. Regulation on Research Misconduct
	A draft policy was prepared by N. Swazo and L. Duffy last year and sent to the University’ counsel’s office for review where it has apparently died. If resurrected, the policy will be sent to the Senate through Faculty Affairs.

5.  UAF Budget process
The FA committee will make the formulation of a procedure to involve the Senate in budget development an on-going business item. B. Simmons will take on this task for the committee.

6. Spouse Appointment Policy
UAF needs a policy for a trailing spouse. B. Luick and A. Bult-Ito will examine the issue and develop a draft policy for the committee.

New Business:
1.  Bookstore policy on textbook substitution.
M. Box raised an issue concerning texts ordering procedures by the bookstore. Apparently in some cases texts ordered by faculty members were substituted by the bookstore without consultation with the instructor. M. Box and J. Leguard will investigate procedure/policy for the committee to formulate a course of action for the Senate.

2. News Miner/UAF gubernatorial debate 
B. Luick informed the committee of the pending gubernatorial debate to be held on campus and hosted by KUAC and the News Miner. Some faculty members have objected to the procedures involved in the structure of the debate and screening of the audience by the newspaper. B. Luick and M. Box will seek clarification from KUAC to ensure that University principles are upheld.

3.  D. Odess was appointed to be the FA representative to the Unit Criteria Committee.

Adjourn: 4:09 p.m.

**************************
ATTACHMENT 110/4
UAF Faculty Senate #110
SEPTEMBER 23, 2002
SUBMITTED BY GRADUATE ACADEMIC & ADVISORY 

GRADUATE ACADEMIC AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE

REPORT OF MEETING, Wednesday September 11 2002 1:30 p.m.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:  Abhijit Dandekar, Petroleum Engineering; Mary Erhlander, CLA; Rolf Gradinger, SFOS/IMS; Meriam Karlsson, Plant/Animal/Soil Sci.; Zhonggo Ma, Civil and Environmental Engineering; Pamela McWherter, Communications; Christa Mulder, Biology and Wildlife/IAB; Maribeth Murray, Anthropology; Doug Reynolds, Economics; Dennis Stephens, Library

Meetings for fall semester:  Fridays, 3:30 p.m. Chancellor's Conference Room, 330 Signers' Hall. 

As a first order of business the committee appointed Maribeth Murray chair.
 
Old Business from last semester:

The following items from last semester remain on the GAAC agenda and were briefly introduced to new GAAC members for discussion in future meetings.

1)	Follow-up on issues raised at course/program introduction during later evaluations.

Should the GAAC provide a list of potential concerns raised during course/program introductions to later evaluators from the GAAC and to other course/program reviewers? This is issue is one of a number raised last semester that relate to continuity in GAAC decision and policy making.

2)	Distance Delivery

Considering the rapid development of on-line graduate courses, including the development of degrees that are offered on-line the GAAC saw the need to implement some quality control into the process.  On-line courses currently do not require a submission of a formal request, nor do student course evaluations appear to take into account the specific strengths and weaknesses of on-line delivery.  These issues should be followed up in the coming semesters and along with inquiry to Curricular Affairs regarding efforts there to implement a joint CAC-GAAC working group on "Technology Enhanced Education."

3)	Joint Ph.D. / Collaborative Ph.D. within the UA System

What role if any should the GAAC play in the development of policies related to Joint/Collaborative Ph.D. degrees within the UA system?   This follows from some of the business addressed by the GAAC last year which, although not directly related to the Joint/Collaborative Ph.D., relates to the complexities and challenges associated with the development of new graduate degree programs even within UAF.

4)	Stacked Courses

There are many issues surrounding the stacking of 400/600 level courses.  There is currently no mechanism in place to check the balance other than at the course approval stage, there is no evaluation of the extent to which degree programs rely on stacked courses nor any consensus on what proportion of stacked courses is appropriate for a degree, it is not clear whether graduate students can enroll at the undergraduate level and visa versa, nor is there recognition in faculty workload of the extra effort required to prepare and teach stacked courses.  In the last meeting of GAAC for Spring 2002, the committee considered forwarding a discussion item to the Senate on limiting the number of stacked courses than are part of a degree program’s required courses or courses counting towards a degree.  Committee members M. Murray and C. Read were asked to develop a draft policy on stacking and to identify and enumerate problems associated with stacking.  M. Murray proposed to circulate this very rough draft to the new GAAC in order to get the discussion on this issue moving forward.

New Business:

1) Overloads in Three Week Summer Sessions
 
The committee has been asked to address the issue of policy development for "maximum credits" for summer semester.  This issue is also under advisement at Curricular Affairs.  It appears that there was once a policy but that it has somehow disappeared from the catalogue.  This item was placed on the agenda for discussion on September 20.

Meeting Adjourned: somewhere around 2:30 p.m.

**************************
ATTACHMENT 110/5
UAF Faculty Senate #110
SEPTEMBER 23, 2002
SUBMITTED BY CORE REVIEW

Core Review Committee Report

Meeting of 11 September, 2002, 1-2 pm

Present:  Douglas Schamel (Chair), Jin Brown, Mary Goodwin, Paul McCarthy, Rainer Newberry, John Heaton, Sue McHenry (ex-officio), Frank Williams (guest)

Absent: D.A. Bartlett, Jill Faudree (both had courses to teach), student member (vacant)

Frank Williams presented ideas regarding the potential addition of a "technology" course to the Core requirements.  We discussed the pros and cons of this idea for about 30 minutes, then asked for several members to examine the desirability and feasibility of implementing such a course or courses.  Volunteers for this sub-committee included Jin Brown, Mary Goodwin, Paul McCarthy; Frank Williams agreed to work with this committee.  Ideas discussed included 1) adding material (and one credit) to the LS 101X course, and 2) imbedding technology into upper-division courses (as currently done with "O" and "W" courses).  Committee members recognized that some degree programs are tight for credits.

Schamel (in his role as Chair) debriefed members on Core activity over the summer.  This included a number of petitions, the receipt of assessments of Core courses, and the current attempt to "tidy up" loose ends with syllabus and catalog descriptions of "O" and "W" courses.  To this end, syllabi of "O" and "W" courses offered this fall will be collected and examined for appropriate wording.  This will be done by deans and directors before passing syllabi to the Core Review Committee.  Courses with syllabi lacking essential details will be removed from the Core beginning with the 2003-04 academic year.

The desirability of allowing Core courses to be counted as part of major or minor requirements was brought forward last academic year.  This is clearly NOT allowed with current wording of the Core document.  The Core Review Committee will investigate this matter this academic year.  Rainer Newberry and John Heaton have currently volunteered to investigate this issue; they will consult with Gayle Gregory (Graduation Office).

Jin Brown moved that Douglas Schamel continue as committee chair.  This was seconded; all members present voted "yes".  Schamel agreed to continue as Chair.

The next meeting will be Wednesday, 16 October, 9:15 – 10:15.  The meeting room will be announced later.