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

A G E N D A
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #111
Monday, October 28, 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 #110
		C.	Adoption of Agenda

1:05	II	Status of Chancellor's Office Actions 		  5 Min.
		A.	Motions Pending:  none

1:10	III	A.	Remarks by Provost P. Reichardt		10 Min.
		B.	Guest Speaker  - Wendy Redman 		10 Min. 
		C. 	Guest Speaker - President Hamilton		20 Min.

1:50	IV	Public Comments/Questions 				10 Min.

2:00	V	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.

2:20		***BREAK***						10 Min

2:30	VI	New Business						25 Min.
	A.	Motion to amend the AA degree requirements 
		(Attachment 111/1), submitted by Curricular Affairs  
	B.	Motion to amend the Guidelines for the Evaluation 
		Process of Administrators (Attachment 111/2), 
		submitted by Faculty Appeals & Oversight 
	C.	Motion to approve the establishment of a Senator 
		of the Year Award (Attachment 111/3), submitted 
		by Administrative Committee 
	D.	Resolution on the Bookstore (Attachment 111/4), 
		submitted by Faculty Affairs
	E.	Resolution of Support (Attachment 111/5), 
		submitted by Administrative Committee

2:55	VII	Committee Reports 					15 Min.
	A.	Curricular Affairs - R. Illingworth (Attachment 111/6)
	B.	Faculty Affairs - P. McRoy (Attachment 111/7)
	C.	Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee – M. Murray
		(Attachment 111/8)
	D.	Core Review - D. Schamel (Attachment 111/9)
	E.	Curriculum Review - G. Holton
	F.	Developmental Studies - J. Weber (Attachment 111/10)
	G.	Faculty Appeals & Oversight - P. Layer  (Attachment 111/11)
	H.	Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement – A. Bult-Ito
		(Attachment 111/12)
	I.	Ad Hoc Committee on Unit Criteria - G. Holton 
		(Attachment 111/13)

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

3:15	X	Adjournment

ATTACHMENT 111/1
UAF Faculty Senate #111
October 28, 2002
SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the requirements for the Associate of Arts degree to include Math 161 as a course that will satisfy the Mathematics or Natural Science requirement as follows:

	EFFECTIVE:  	Fall 2003

	RATIONALE:   	The Math department has recommended that 
		Math 161 be included in the list of math classes that will 
		satisfy the Core math requirement.  This motion will bring 
		the AA degree into line with the Core requirements.  

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

[[  ]] = deletion   
CAPS = addition

Associate of Arts

The Associate of Arts degree represents the completion of broad-based college study.  This degree may serve as a starting point for a career or a stepping stone to a baccalaureate program.  A student may earn only one A.A. degree.  

Requirements 							Credits

All credits for the A.A. degree must be at the 100 level or above, and 20 credits must be at the 200 level or above, and be distributed as follows:

Communications:  (9 credits)

ENGL 111X --Introduction to Academic Writing     		3 
ENGL 211X --Academic Writing about Literature 
  or ENGL 212-- Business, Grant and Report Writing
  or ENGL 213X--Academic Writing about the Social 
	and Natural Sciences      					3 
COMM 131X --Fundamentals of Oral Communication:  
	Group Context  
  or COMM 141X --Fundamental of Oral Communication:  
	Public Context      							 3 

Mathematics or Natural Science:  (10 Credits)
MATH 107X-Functions of Calculus 
  OR MATH 131X-Concepts and Contemporary Applications 
	of Mathematics  
  OR MATH 161X-ALGEBRA FOR BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS 	3
    (OR Math 200X, 201X, 202X, 272X, or any math 
	course having one of these as a prerequisite)     
One natural science course, with lab, selected from 
	the baccalaureate core   					4 
Mathematics (computer science, mathematics or statistics 
	course at the 100-level or above) or natural science   	3 

Humanities and Social Science: (18 Credits)
ANTH 100X/SOC 100X --Individual, Society and Culture	3 
ECON 100X/PS 100X --Political Economy    			3 
HIST 100X --Modern World History    				3 
ART/MUS/THR 200X -- Aesthetic Appreciation: 
	Interrelationship of Art, Drama and Music 
  or HUM 201X --Unity in the Arts      				3 
ENGL/FL 200X --World Literature      				3 
Humanities or social science elective    				3 
	Two semester-length courses in a single Alaska 
	Native Language or other non-English language or 
	three semester-length courses (9 credits) in American 
	Sign Language taken at the university level may 
	substitute for two of the courses above.  

Library and Information Skills:  (0-1 credit)
Successful completion of library skills competency test,
 or LS 100X, or LS 101X     						0-1 

Successful completion of the library skills competency 
test satisfies this requirement of the core curriculum, 
but does not carry degree credit.  
(It is strongly recommended that this requirement be 
completed before enrolling in the 200-level English course 
requirement or that it be completed concurrently with 
enrollment in the 200-level English core requirement.)

General Electives:  (22-23 credits)
   Any combination of courses   (Students planning to go 
   on to the baccalaureate degree are advised to select 
   courses meeting remaining core requirements, and 
   courses designated within majors and minors.)		22-23

Electives to Total							 60 

*English 212 doesn't fulfill the second half of the written 
communication requirement for the baccalaureate degree.

[[**MATH 161 --Algebra for Business and Economics, is not an equivalent course for MATH 107X.  ]]

ATTACHMENT 111/2
UAF Faculty Senate #111
October 28, 2002
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY APPEALS & OVERSIGHT

MOTION: 
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the Guidelines for the Evaluation Process for Administrators as follows:  

	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately

	RATIONALE:  	This will clarify who appoints the chair of the review committee.

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

GUIDELINES FOR THE EVALUATION PROCESS FOR ADMINISTRATORS

1. 	Within the first three weeks of the Fall Semester the 
	Supervisor of the Administrator to be reviewed will appoint 
	an Ad Hoc Administrator Review Committee consisting of 
	five members, at least three of whom must be faculty.  (It 
	is recommended that staff be included on the ad hoc 
	committee as appropriate.)  The chair of the committee 
	shall be appointed from the Faculty Senate BY THE 
	SUPERVISOR OF THE ADMINISTRATOR TO BE EVALUATED. 
	One of the three faculty shall be appointed from the Faculty 
	Appeals & Oversight Committee.

	In the case of evaluation of the Dean of the Graduate School, 
	the Provost will appoint an Ad Hoc Committee consisting 
	of two faculty drawn from the UAF Faculty Senate's 
	Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee, one Dean/
	Director, one member of the Faculty Appeals and 
	Oversight Committee, and a student representative 
	from the Graduate Student Organization.  

	The Ad Hoc Committee will solicit input from all relevant 
	constituencies on- and off-campus, including faculty, staff, 
	and students.  This may be accomplished through various 
	instruments, e.g., a standard questionnaire completed 
	anonymously and returned to the Committee Chair.

2. 	The Administrator to be evaluated will prepare a narrative 
	self-evaluation of activities performed during the three-year 
	period (academic years) prior to the year of evaluation or since 
	the last evaluation.  This narrative should include reflections 
	about how adequately s/he has fulfilled responsibilities of 
	leadership consistent with his/her own performance 
	expectations and those of faculty, staff, and students in 
	the unit.  Major or otherwise significant accomplishments 
	should be highlighted.  Any issues raised in the last evaluation 
	should be referenced with a view to what progress has been 
	made on those items.  Finally, the self-evaluation should 
	identify a limited set of reasonable goals for the unit over 
	the next three years, with some discussion about specific 
	strategies that may be undertaken through his/her 
	administrative leadership. 

3.  	The Ad Hoc Committee will interview a select sample of faculty, 
	staff, students and others as relevant for further evaluative 
	comments about the Administrator's performance.

4.  	The Ad Hoc Committee will interview the Administrator either 
	in person or by conference call.   The interview shall proceed 
	on the basis of a set of questions which reference the 
	Administrator's self-evaluation, the results of returned 
	questionnaires, and the interviews of faculty, staff, and 
	students.

5. 	The Ad Hoc Committee will prepare an evaluative summary, 
	and submit its report to the Provost (in the case of evaluation 
	of Deans) or to the Chancellor (in the case of evaluation of 
	the Provost or any other administrator who reports directly 
	to the Chancellor).  The Ad Hoc Committee shall work as 
	expeditiously as possible in completing its report and submit 
	it to the Provost or Chancellor as the case may be by March 
	15 of the Spring Semester.  

	(a) 	At a date to be set by the Provost, the Provost or 
		administrator's supervisor shall meet in joint conference 
		with the Ad Hoc Committee and the Faculty Appeals & 
		Oversight Committee for final review, recommendations, 
		and disposition of the Administrator’s evaluation.  The 
		supervisor of the administrator will thereafter provide 
		his/her formal evaluation taking into account the Ad Hoc 
		Committee's report. 

	(b) 	At a date to be set by the Chancellor, the Provost and 
		the Chancellor shall meet to discuss the Ad Hoc 
		Committee’s evaluation of the Provost.  During this 
		meeting the Chancellor and Provost shall identify 
		performance priorities for the next review period.  The 
		Chancellor shall meet in joint conference with the Ad Hoc 
		Committee and the UAF Faculty Senate’s Faculty Appeals 
		& Oversight Committee to summarize his evaluation.  

ATTACHMENT 111/3
UAF Faculty Senate #111
October 28, 2002
SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE

MOTION:
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve the establishment of an Outstanding Senator of the Year Award (OSYA) as outlined in the attached. 

	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately

	RATIONALE:  	The Outstanding Senator(s) of the year award is an award to be given by the UAF Faculty Senate for truly outstanding contribution of service for academic quality at the University.  The recipient should be a serving member of the UAF Faculty Senate or a serving member of a permanent or standing committee of the Faculty Senate who has made a major contribution to the faculty's and student's welfare, to the faculty's ability to carry out its duties more effectively, to the general betterment of the University outside the teaching and research function, or has shown wise and courageous leadership (and responsibility) on behalf of the faculty and University

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

		OUTSTANDING SENATOR OF THE YEAR AWARD (OSYA)

PURPOSE: 

The Outstanding Senator(s) of the year award is an award to be given by the UAF Faculty Senate for truly outstanding contribution of service for academic quality at the University.  The contribution to be recognized would be far beyond that normally made by an individual in the normal performance of his or her job.  

CRITERIA:  

The recipient should be a serving member of the UAF Faculty Senate or a serving member of a permanent or standing committee of the Faculty Senate who has made a major contribution to the faculty's and student's welfare, to the faculty's ability to carry out its duties more effectively, to the general betterment of the University outside the teaching and research function, or has shown wise and courageous leadership (and responsibility) in behalf of the faculty and University.  This should be an award for service, not teaching or research, above and beyond that normally expected from an individual.  

NON-ELIGIBILITY:  

The President and President-Elect of the Faculty Senate are not eligible to receive this award in their positions during their years of service.  

PROCEDURES:  

Any eligible Faculty Senate member may nominate a candidate for the OSYA.  The letter of nomination should include a brief list of the Senator's accomplishments and a cover letter that makes the case for the nominee.  The nomination should be submitted to the Faculty Senate President by March 1.  

The Screening Committee will consist of five members.  One member will be appointed from the Provost Council by the Provost.  The Faculty Senate will select four (4) members one of whom will be the President-Elect, and three others, none of whom is a nominee, in the March meeting of the Senate.  This committee will meet prior to the April meeting of the Senate to screen all applicants and select one or two candidates that are recommended to the Senate President.  

In the April Faculty Senate meeting, the committee shall move the appropriate resolution(s).  After appropriate discussion, the full Senate shall vote by secret ballot on the motions.  A simple majority vote of those attending will be necessary for the Senate to confirm an OSYA.  The votes will be counted by the President and Secretary of the Senate, and the award is announced by the President of the Senate.  

The award is to be presented by the President of the Senate and the form of the award shall be a framed, hand-lettered certificate that contains the resolution passed by the Senate and the signatures of the Faculty Senate President and President-Elect, and a cash award.

ATTACHMENT 111/4
UAF Faculty Senate #111
October 28, 2002
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY AFFAIRS

RESOLUTION:
=========

INASMUCH as a pattern of mishap has emerged over time with respect 
	to the supply of textbooks to students by the university bookstore, 
	and

WHEREAS, the letter from the interim manager reproduced below, and 
	hereby read into the minutes of the senate, shows a due 
	appreciation of the importance of the supply of the correct books 
	to students so that classes can get off to a good start each term, 
	and

WHEREAS, the four measures listed in the letter seem well calculated 
	to remedy the problem, now

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the UAF Faculty Senate commends 
	the measures listed and wishes the manager and her staff all 
	success in their implementation.

***********

October 1, 2002

Dear Dr. Box,

I would like to thank both you and Dr. Leguard for taking the time to share with me your concerns, and the concerns of other faculty members, regarding the bookstore’s textbook adoption policies.  I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you about this matter, and also your offer to pass along to other faculty members this summary of our discussion. 

The most important message I would like to convey is an assurance to you and all of the other faculty members that it is not bookstore policy to substitute a textbook of our choosing for the textbook that the instructor has selected.   We realize that the textbook is a valuable learning tool, and that we have neither the knowledge to select that tool for the instructor, or the right to disrupt the planned learning process by making an unauthorized textbook substitution.  Unfortunately, it appears that several textbook orders for the fall semester were filled with books that were different either in edition or format from the books that were ordered, without prior knowledge of the instructor.  This is inexcusable and should never happen.  Because of this lapse in communication on our part, the bookstore has developed the following procedure to deal with requested textbooks that are no longer available:

1-	If a textbook is not available as ordered, no matter what the reason (old edition, out of stock, now bundled with something else, etc….) the textbook department will attempt to contact the instructor immediately by phone to discuss the textbook options available.
2-	If the instructor can’t be reached by phone, the textbook department will e-mail both the instructor, and the department administrative assistant. (If an instructor is off contract, or otherwise unavailable via the contact points listed in the UAF directory, it would be helpful to us if an alternate method of contact is listed on the textbook adoption form.)  
3-	If the textbook department doesn’t hear back from the instructor or the administrative assistant by the time the order needs to be placed for timely arrival, the textbook coordinator will use his best judgment and order the edition the publisher deems a substitute for the edition the instructor has selected, but is no longer available. We will not substitute titles (only new editions for old editions, bundle packed for textbook only, etc.) and we will only substitute editions if we are advised the edition ordered is no longer available.  The textbook department will then send a notification/explanation letter to the department.  
4-	As a resource, approximately one month prior to the start of the semester, the bookstore will send a report to each department listing all of the books on order for that department.  Books ordered for individual classes can also be viewed on the bookstore’s website: www.uaf.edu/bookstore via the “textbook lists” link.  The bookstore’s website also features a textbook adoption link where faculty members can both adopt books online, and research the textbook adoption history of all UAF courses for the last three years. 

We hope that these measures will prevent the type of problems that occurred this fall.  If you or other faculty members have any questions or comments regarding bookstore procedure, please don’t hesitate to contact me at extension 5275, or the Textbook Coordinator, Steve Tate, at extension 5778.
 
Thanks again for being kind enough to call these problems to my attention. 

Most Sincerely,

Becky Phillips
Interim Manager
UAF Bookstore
fybook@uaf.edu
474-5275  

ATTACHMENT 111/5
UAF Faculty Senate #111
October 28, 2002
SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE

RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT

Whereas, the University of Alaska has increased both the quality and value of its academic and student support programs, and

WHEREAS, 
•	from 1998-2002, UA increased the number of faculty by over 200 and staff by over 500 and, 
•	UA introduced a suite of online student services including registration, financial aid, and fee payment, and

WHEREAS, 
•	Total scholarship dollars awarded at UA have increased by 80%, from $5.5 million in academic year 1997-1998 to $10 million in academic year 2000-2001, while tuition has increased by 12% since 1997, and
•	From 1999-2001, the number of course sections with associated fees decreased by 11.3%, and

WHEREAS, UA instructional costs (direct instruction, academic and student support) per FTE student have increased significantly from 1997-2002,  and

WHEREAS, new operating costs are associated with improved services such as
•	The operating cost of the new UAA library,
•	The operating costs of the TVC Courthouse, the UAA University Center and
•	The University’s commitment to the Nursing education, and

WHEREAS, UA tuition over the last five years has increased at a fraction compared to other universities and UA students pay a smaller share of their educational costs than other universities, and 

WHEREAS, the increase amounts to only $24 for a 3-credit course, now

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the UAF Faculty Senate supports a 10% tuition increase to maintain the quality and value of a UA education.

ATTACHMENT 111/6
UAF Faculty Senate #111
October 28, 2002
SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS

Curricular Affairs Committee Meeting Report

The Curricular Affairs committee held audioconferenced meetings on 24 Sept & 8 Oct 2002 from 1130am to 1 p.m.  

Members present included Mike Hannigan, Wanda Martin, David Barnes, Eduard Zilberkant, Carol Barnhardt, James Gladden, Gary Holton, William Schneider, Gayle Gregory, Ron Slominski, and Ron Illingworth.  Guests included Susan Blalock representing Dean Morrow.

All meetings will be audioconferenced as well as face to face as some members of the committee are from outside Fairbanks.  At our first meeting, we welcomed Ron Slominski, the new registrar and are looking forward to his participation with this committee.

The committee addressed the following issues:
1.  The committee reviewed the listing of issues which will be before us this semester.

2.  The committee discussed a course addition to the AA degree to reflect the addition of this Math course (Math 161) to the baccalaureate core.  Since the AA attempts to provide a stepping stone to baccalaureate degree and is usually considered a "transfer" degree into baccalaureate programs, it was determined that this course should be added to the AA degree.  The motion to change this degree was submitted to the Faculty Senate for the 28 October meeting.

3.  The committee discussed a proposal from the Foreign Language Department to change the "bonus credit" option as currently reflected in the catalog under Local Advanced Placement Credit so that it would be applicable to 400-level courses.  After discussion, the proposal was returned to the Foreign Language Department with some suggestions.

4. After a review, the committee approved the acceptance of transfer credit by license/certificate for a student with Journeyman status in the Plumbing trades.

5. The committee introduced and held preliminary discussion on several new issues which will be continued to our 22 October 2002 meeting.
	a.  Summer Sessions student credit enrollment policy
	b.  Regular academic year student credit enrollment policy
	c.  Mandatory placement--forwarded by the Developmental Studies Committee

The next meeting of the Curricular Affairs Committee is scheduled for 22 October 2002.

Respectfully submitted
Ronald D. Illingworth, Chair
Curricular Affairs Committee

ATTACHMENT 111/7
UAF Faculty Senate #111
October 28, 2002
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY AFFAIRS

FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE MEETING REPORT - Monday, 14 Oct  2002

Committee Members Present:
Mark Box, CLA; Abel Bult-Ito, CSEM (Co-chair); Joan Leguard, CLA; Bret Luick, CRA; Peter McRoy, SFOS (Chair); Dan Odess, CLA; Shirish Patil, SME

Old Business:
1.	Spouse Appointment Policy (Bult-Ito/Luick)
	A selection of policies on this and related topics from 13 universities was distributed to FA members for review. The Committee agreed that Bult-Ito and Luick pursue a draft for UAF of a specific spousal hiring policy rather than a dual career assistance program or a shared position policy.

2.	News Miner/UAF gubernatorial debate (Box/Luick)
	In September the Committee raised concern over the arrangements for proposed debate of gubernatorial candidates sponsored by the News Miner and KUAC to be held on the UAF campus. Objections from faculty were raised on several issues: not all gubernatorial candidates were invited to participate, screening of participants and questions by unidentified persons, and restricted audience size.  On 19 September, a meeting of concerned individuals, including Bret Simmons, Joan Leguard, Robert Hannon, Rich Siefert, Godwin Chukwu, Chancellor Lind, and the PR officer for the university, was held to discuss the issues. Some small concessions were made following the discussion.  FA  concludes that no further action is now recommended. 

3.	Bookstore policy (Box/Leguard)
	The issue of the bookstore occasionally substituting texts for courses from those ordered by faculty was brought to the attention of Becky Phillips who responded with a letter addressing the points of concern.  FA committee members felt the issues were adequately treated but that a statement from the Senate was needed to be on record.  A resolution was sent to the Administration Committee for consideration.

4.	Classified Research (McRoy)
	The Ad Hoc Committee  on Classified Research is now meeting weekly in order to have a draft policy ready for the Senate this semester. When ready the Ad-Hoc Committee will submit its policy to the Senate through FA. 

5.	Parking (Patil/McRoy)
	This item has been on the FA agenda since last year. In recent developments the Master Planning committee has formed a Subcommittee on Circulation and Parking and President Chukwu has nominated Patil to be the Senate representative on the subcommittee. After some discussion the committee concluded that the new MPC subcommittee does not address the concerns raised by faculty members. Proposal will be put forward to the Senate for a committee that deals with more “day to day” parking issues.

6.	UAF Budget process (McRoy)
	Bult-Ito informed the committee that President Chukwu appointed him to be the budget liaison for the Senate. This new position is welcomed by FA however it presents some conflict within the Faculty Affairs Committee; consultation with President Chukwu will be sought.

7.	Regulation of Research Misconduct (McRoy)
	A policy was drafted last year by Swazo and Duffy and sent to statewide for review. The policy remains in their hands with no known schedule for advancement.

8.	Unit Criteria Committee (Odess)
	Odess reported that the committee met and determined that units should review the criteria for promotion, tenure and post tenure review every 5 years. There is an on-going discussion of what constitutes a 'unit'.

9.	New Business: Proposed Vice Provost for Graduate and Instructional Affairs (McRoy)
	McRoy reported that the Provost has advanced a proposal to the Administrative Committee to create the position of Vice Provost for Graduate and Instructional Affairs.  A detailed discussion followed the proposal. Concerns include first if the position needs to be elevated to the vice provost level, second what is to be the role of "instructional affairs?" Is it intended that all instruction be under this officer? The FA committee members thought that more detail and justification on the proposed position is necessary before the Senate could consider it.

ATTACHMENT 111/8
UAF Faculty Senate #111
October 28, 2002
SUBMITTED BY GRADUATE ACADEMIC & ADVISORY COMMITTEE

REPORT OF MEETING - Friday September 27 2002 3:30 p.m.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ed Bueler, Mathematics; Mary Erhlander, CLA; Rolf Gradinger, SFOS/IMS; Meriam Karlsson, Plant/Animal/Soil Sci.; Christa Mulder, Biology and Wildlife/ IAB; Maribeth Murray, Anthropology; Doug Reynolds, Economics; Dennis Stephens, Library; Gayle Gregory, Graduate Office; Ron Slominski, Registrar

GUESTS:  Terry Chapin, Biology and Wildlife; Gary Kofinas, IAB

New Business

1) Terry Chapin and Gary Kofinas spoke about the IGERT program, and the cross-listed, interdisciplinary, team-taught courses in Biology, and Natural Resource Management.

2) Review of Trial Courses
BIOL 696 and NRM 694 
BIOL 694 
These courses will be presented for review/approval by the GAAC at the next meeting – October 4/02.

3) Introduction of the new Registrar, Ron Slominski.

Old Business

1) Summer Sessions Overload  - The GAAC will invite a representative from Education and Ron Illingworth, Chair, Curricular Affairs to an October meeting to discuss issues related to overloads in summer session. A search for old policy, if any, regarding summer overloads is ongoing. 

2) Stacked Courses – the committee will identify a list of issues pertaining to the stacking of 400/600 level courses. The committee will also consider holding an open forum on stacking and graduate education at UAF.

Meeting Adjourned: 4:30 p.m.

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

REPORT OF MEETING - Friday October 4 2002 3:30 p.m.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ed Bueler, Mathematics; Mary Erhlander, CLA; Rolf Gradinger, SFOS/IMS; Christa Mulder, Biology and Wildlife/IAB; Maribeth Murray, Anthropology; Doug Reynolds, Economics; Gayle Gregory, Graduate Office; Ron Slominski, Registrar

GUESTS:  Larry Duffy, CSEM

New Business:

1) Larry Duffy, (CSEM) spoke to the committee about GRE requirements. Although the Graduate School does not require GRE scores, some departments, including Engineering require them. In the case of students with exceptional work experience in the relevant field, or other outstanding qualifications, departments may wish to waive the GRE requirement for acceptance into a graduate program. The committee suggested that affected departments develop criteria for granting a waiver. 

It is unclear whether Admissions, and/or the Graduate School check to see Department requirements are met by prospective students. Does Admissions and/or the Graduate School reject an applicant who does not meet department requirements if the department chooses the waive these?  The committee will follow up in an effort to clarify the role of Admissions and the Graduate School in such cases.

2) Trial Course BIOL 694 Regional Sustainability. Reviewed and approved by the Committee.

3) Review of Trial Course BIOL 694 – Writing a Review in Behavioral Neuroscience. Approval is pending while the committee seeks clarification on course requirements and number of credits.

4) Review of Trial Course NRM 694 – Adaptive Management. Reviewed and approved after clarification of the catalogue description, the unique nature of the course, and upper/lower division status.

Next Meeting: Friday October 18, 2002

Meeting Adjourned: 4:40 p.m.

ATTACHMENT 111/9
UAF Faculty Senate #111
October 28, 2002
SUBMITTED BY CORE REVIEW

Report to the Faculty Senate, 21 October 2002
Core Review Committee

Presented by Douglas Schamel, Chair

The Core Review Committee last met on 16 October.  

* We considered and voted on several petitions.  One petition requested waiver of lab credits, based upon 6 (count 'em, 6!) science courses completed without labs.  We denied that petition, and encouraged the student to enroll only in the lab portion of appropriate Core science courses.  We are investigating the availability of these courses. 

* We voted to remove non-compliant "O" and "W" courses from the Core.  These are courses that have not provided permission to include the appropriate prerequisites in the 2003-2004 UAF catalog.  

* We discussed a note from the Provost, which requests us to work with the Faculty Development Office to provide workshops on teaching "O" courses.  This is a direct result of poor performance by "O" courses in the 2001-02 assessment of the Core.

* We postponed discussion of adding a "technology" component to the Core.

* We postponed discussion of allowing Core courses to be used for major requirements.  Initial investigation indicates this should work fine for the B.S. degree, but perhaps not for the B.A.  

* Our next meeting will be 30 October, from 9:15 - 10:15.  The postponed items will be the main issues on the agenda.

ATTACHMENT 111/10
UAF Faculty Senate #111
October 28, 2002
SUBMITTED BY DEVELOPMENTAL STUDIES

Minutes of The Developmental Studies Committee
October 3, 2002

Present:  Judy Atkinson, John Bruder, Rich Carr, Kat Gustafson, Cindy Hardy, Marjie Illingworth, Ron Illingworth, Wanda Martin, Joe Mason, Debbie Moses, Greg Owens, Jane Weber.

The Developmental Studies Committee met and discussed the following:

Planning Process:

The focus of this committee for the next several months will be to generate a plan for a Developmental Studies program UAF-wide.  We have set up a meeting schedule with the goal of a face-to-face meeting in early spring to review what we've done and finalize the plan.   This will be accomplished through a series of subcommittee meetings, each of which will address a group of recommendations from the Developmental Studies assessment conducted last spring.

The subcommittees will divide up as follows:

Group A: Recommendations 1, 2, 3, 4, 7

Group B: Recommendations 6, 12, 13, 14

Group C: Recommendations 9, 10, 11

The committee as a whole has already addressed Recommendation 5 and will be addressing Recommendation 8, both through discipline subgroups and at the next meeting.

Recommendation 8:

This recommendation addresses the articulation between DEVE/M and subsequent academic classes.  The committee has divided into three subgroups (English, Math, Study Skills), which will bring recommendations back to the committee at the next meeting.

Budget:  Jane Weber and Cindy Hardy have worked up a budget and have given it to Bernice Joseph to present to Provost Reichardt.

Next Meeting:  The sub-groups on Recommendation 8 will be meeting before the next full committee meeting.

The next full committee meeting will be October 31, 2-3:30 p.m.

ATTACHMENT 111/11
UAF Faculty Senate #111
October 28, 2002
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY APPEALS & OVERSIGHT

Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee, Paul Layer, Chair:

The FAOC met on Wednesday, October 16 at 2:15 PM. 

Members present were:  Chen, Duffy, Gold, Himelbloom, Juday, Kawagley, Khataniar, Layer, Parker-Webster, Riley, Stortz.  

There were three main agenda items discussed.

1.  We discussed the motion clarifying the language regarding selection of a chair of administrator review committees.  This amendment was approved and forwarded to the Senate.

2.  We request of all FAOC committee members that they inform Governance about their involvement on appeals committees.  In this way, we can begin to document committee activity, which has not been done to date.

3.  We discussed the Administrator review process.  Although it seems that review of "Group A" administrators is progressing on a schedule (the Provost is being reviewed this year), it is less clear regarding "Group B" Directors.  The Senate motion states that "administrators be reviewed on a four year cycle" and that Group B administrators "should be periodically reviewed by their immediate supervisory administrator according to a process established at the discretion of the supervisory administrator".  In most cases, the supervisory administrator is either the Provost or the Executive Dean of the College of Rural Alaska.  Paul Layer and Julie Riley will be contacting these supervisors to inquire about a schedule and process for evaluation of the Group B administrators that they supervise.

The next meeting is tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, November 20, 2:15 PM.

ATTACHMENT 111/12
UAF Faculty Senate #111
October 28, 2002
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY DEVELOPMENT, ASSESSMENT & IMPROVEMENT

Minutes of Faculty Development, Assessment, and Improvement Committee Meeting, Tuesday, 10 October 2002 / 9am
Office of Faculty Development, 222 Bunnell

Committee Members Present:  Brian Barnes, Abel Bult-Ito, Paul McCarthy, Joy Morrison, Channon Price, E. Thomas Robinson, Ann Wilson, and Shunpu Zhang

Committee Members Absent:  Gerald Berman, George Charles, Linda Curda, and Roger Norris-Tull

First order of business was the introduction of Brian Barnes, Director of the Institute of Arctic Biology, as a new member replacing Jim Collins and representing the Administration.  WELCOME Brian and THANK YOU Jim!

New Business:
1.	Ann Wilson and Joy Morrison reported on the Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education (POD) Conference held October 9-13, 2002, in Atlanta, Georgia.  Ann mentioned that this was a fantastic conference.  Ann focused on issues related to faculty development of adjunct/part-time faculty.  Although there were only a few workshops dealing with this topic specifically, the conference as a whole provided a lot of useful information.  Brian Barnes asked whether salaries of adjunct faculty were a topic of discussion at the conference.  Ann indicated that it was and that the low salaries for adjunct faculty are a major problem.
Joy reported about several interesting workshops listed below.  Information on these workshops, e.g. books, workshop reports, CDs, and videos, are available in the Office of Faculty Development (222 Bunnell):
a)	Evaluating the return on investment of faculty development
b)	Publish, Don’t Perish. A workshop led by Tara Gray from New Mexico State University, whom Joy would like to invite for a workshop at UAF in spring 2003.
c)	CD ROM on teaching resources for PowerPoint
d)	CD ROM: Active/Cooperative Learning: Best practices in Engineering Education
e)	Books on “Collaborative Learning”, “Never a Dull Moment”, etc.
f)	Teaching workshop videos
The next POD conference will be held in Denver, Colorado, 8-12 October 2003.  Please contact Joy Morrison if you are interested in attending.

2.	Joy also reported that the American Association for Higher Education (AAHE) conference is going to be held 14-17 March 2003 in Washington, D.C.  The title of the conference is: 2003 Learning to Change Conference: “Good Work in Challenging Times”.  Information on this conference can be found at www.aahe.org/learningtochange.  Please contact Joy Morrison if you are interested in attending.  We also briefly discussed the 2002 Assessment Institute conference in Indianapolis, Indiana, that will be attended by 4 faculty (Rich Boone, Tom Greene, Shirish Patil, and Doug Schamel [team leader]), who subsequently will be asked to give assessment workshops at UAF.

3.	The Ad Hoc Committee on Unit Criteria is working on a draft motion to amend the UAF Regulations for the Appointment and Evaluation of faculty, Chapter III, section E. Unit Criteria, Standards and Indices.  Discussions of this draft resulted in the following observations/recommendations:
•	Tom Robinson and Channon Price brought up that the last sentence of the third paragraph is unclear and also that this sentence appears to have the same intent as the proposed addition to the first sentence in this paragraph.  The suggestion was to delete the last sentence to avoid duplication.
•	The definition of “Unit” is unclear and needs to be clarified wherever possible.  For example, in some instances “unit” might be replaced by “department” to be more specific.
•	The general consensus of the committee was that individual departments should have the right to establish their own criteria.  This would be true even if these departments are grouped with other departments to compose a unit peer review committee.  Chapter IV, section B5 states: “The unit peer-review committee shall be composed of at least five (5) tenured faculty at the same or higher rank as the unit member being reviewed, with at least three (3) at the rank of full professor.”  It was suggested that the Rationale section of the motion might point out the minimum number of faculty members that constitute a unit peer review committee.
•	Brian Barnes brought up the question whether institute directors should be involved in approving unit criteria in addition to the Dean:  This needs to be discussed.
•	The draft does not really include the situation where unit criteria are not in place but are now being developed, in which case the default UAF criteria were used in the past.  This situation may have to be specified.
•	Abel Bult-Ito brought up the point that for continuing faculty who in the motion have the option to use the “old” criteria or the new approved criteria during a period not to exceed 7 years, might be amended so that the new approved unit criteria become active for everyone after going through a major review procedure, including tenure and promotion, tenure, or promotion, but excluding the 4th year review.
•	A suggestion was made to forward one issue to the Faculty Affairs Committee related to whose vote counts in unit peer reviews.  Currently some units require the peer review committee members to be present in person to have their vote count, while other units require the peer review committee member to express their vote whether present at the peer review committee meeting in person or not.

Old business:
4.	The development of a plan to improve the Faculty Mentoring Program was tabled for the next meeting because of a lack of time.  Joy requested that everyone who would like to contribute to this discussion forward suggestions to her at their earliest convenience, so that we have a basis to start our discussions from.

5.	The next meeting of the committee is scheduled for 9:00 am on Tuesday 12 November 2002.  The committee will meet again in the Office of Faculty Development conference room, 222 Bunnell.

6.	The meeting was adjourned at 10:05am.

ATTACHMENT 111/13
UAF Faculty Senate #111
October 28, 2002
SUBMITTED BY AD HOC COMMITTEE ON UNIT CRITERIA

MINUTES
Ad Hoc Committee on Unit Criteria
October 11, 2002

Members Present:

Abel Bult-Ito (FDAIC); Gary Holton  (Curricular Affairs), chair; 
Dan Odess (Faculty Affairs); Julie Riley (Faculty Appeals)

Gary Holton was selected as committee chair.

No proposed unit criteria are currently before the committee for review, thus the committee met primarily to discuss policy issue regarding unit criteria. Several issues of concern had been identified prior to the meeting. These were discussed in turn.

Scope of unit criteria.
Under current policy the definition of "discipline-specific unit Criteria" (often abbreviated to 'unit criteria'). Existing unit criteria may apply to departments which are smaller than peer-review units (e.g., Alaska Native Language Center makes up only one part of the Language and Culture peer-review unit within CLA). In other cases existing criteria apply to now non-existent colleges (e.g., Natural Sciences) or schools (e.g., Engineering).  It is not clear how criteria for reorganized departments, colleges and schools should apply. The committee will discuss this further. However, the committee agrees that in spite of the ill-defined term it should be possible for criteria to be developed at any level (department, college, school) and would thus like to clarify the term "discipline-specific unit criteria".

Applicability of unit criteria when modified or adopted during a period of review. 
When criteria are modified during a faculty member's review period (tenure, promotion, post-tenure), the faculty member should be able to choose which of the criteria in effect at any time during the review period apply. However, the length of time which a faculty member may use criteria which have been superceded should be limited. It was suggested that a review should fall under the new criteria as soon as a faculty member has undergone tenure or post-tenure review. It was decided that this issue needs to be addressed via a policy change.

Review of approved unit criteria.
Current policy requires that existing unit criteria be reviewed by the faculty of the unit at least every five years.  Policy needs to be changed to give faculty senate explicit oversight of the review process.  Revisions to criteria resulting from this 5-year review should go through the regular faculty senate approval process.  Units wishing to retain unit criteria without modification could do so by submitting a statement to this effect.  However, the committee is concerned that even minor changes to unit criteria should require a full review process, due to their potential impact on faculty.

Development and adoption of unit criteria.
Current policy requires that a majority of the faculty in the discipline approve unit criteria, however, this policy is vague and unenforceable. The committee will address this by ensuring all faculty affected by a proposed unit criteria receive an invitation to attend the ad-hoc committee meetings when those criteria are discussed. It was also suggested that, where unit criteria are proposed for large colleges, the criteria should be approved by a majority of the faculty in each department affected by the criteria. This latter issue should be addressed via a proposed policy change.

Requirement for unit criteria.
Current policy requires those units choosing not to adopt discipline-specific criteria to file a statement with the provost--only three units have done so. We would like some input from the provost as to how to encourage submission of criteria or statements in lieu of criteria. Perhaps deadlines could be set on a college by college basis, so that the committee is not deluged with new unit criteria all at once. The committee recommends that the response be at the department level, so that every department has the opportunity to either develop unit criteria or choose to use existing criteria.

In order to clarify unit review criteria policy, the committee drafted a motion amending the Bluebook Chapter III, sect. E.  Committee members will discuss this motion with the committees they represent with the goal of forwarding a revised motion to the full senate at the December meeting.