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 #114
Monday, March 3, 2003
1:00 p.m. - 3:25 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 #113
		C.	Adoption of Agenda

1:05	II	Status of Chancellor's Office Actions 		  5 Min.
		A.	Motions Approved:  
			1.	Motion on Low Grade Reports.
			2.	Motion to amend the Baccalaureate 
				Core Curriculum.
			3.	Motion to approve the Unit Criteria for 
				the School of Mineral Engineering.
		B.	Motions Pending:  none

1:10	III	A.	Remarks by Chancellor M. Lind   		10 Min.
		B.	Remarks by Provost P. Reichardt		10 Min.
		C.	Guest Speakers - Earlina Bowden, 		30 Min.
			Carolyn Chapman, & Deon MacMillan
		D.	Steve Tate - Bookstore   			  5 Min.

2:05 	IV	Public Comments/Questions 				  5 Min.

2:10	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 - B. Andrews      		  5 Min.

2:30		***BREAK***						10 Min

2:40	VI	New Business						25 Min.
	A.	Nominations for President-Elect 
	B.	Screening Committee for OSYA
	C.	Motion to approve a Certificate and A.A.S. in Educator:  
		Para-Professional which includes 12 new courses, 
		submitted by Curricular Affairs (Attachment 114/1)
	D.	Motion to approve adding ENGL 211 or 213 as a 
		prerequisite for all Writing Intensive courses, 
		submitted by Core Review & Curricular Affairs 
		(Attachment 114/2)
	E.	Motion to amend the transfer guidelines for UAF core 
		curriculum requirements, submitted by Core Review 
		(Attachment 114/3)
	F.	Motion to approve the Unit Criteria for Cooperative 
		Extension Service, submitted by the Ad Hoc Committee 
		on Unit Criteria (Attachment 114/4)

3:05	VII	Committee Reports 					15 Min.
	A.	Curricular Affairs - R. Illingworth (Attachment 114/5)
	B.	Faculty Affairs - P. McRoy (Attachment 114/6)
	C.	Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee – M. Murray
		(Attachment 114/7)
	D.	Core Review - D. Schamel (Attachment 114/8)
	E.	Curriculum Review - G. Holton
	F.	Developmental Studies - J. Weber (Attachment 114/9)
	G.	Faculty Appeals & Oversight - P. Layer 
	H.	Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement – 
		A. Bult-Ito (Handout)
	I.	Ad Hoc Committee on Unit Criteria - Gary Holton 
		(Attachment 114/10)

3:20	VIII	Members' Comments/Questions			  5 Min.

3:25	IX	Adjournment

ATTACHMENT 114/1
UAF Faculty Senate #114
March 3, 2003
SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve a Certificate and A.A.S. in Educator:  Para-Professional which includes 12 new courses. 

	EFFECTIVE:  	Fall 2003 or 
		Upon Board of Regents' Approval

	RATIONALE: 	See full program proposal #41-52 and #53-54 
		on file in the Governance Office, 312 Signers’ Hall.

		Certificate consists of general requirements of
		12 credits, 8 credits of certificate core,
		10 credits of program requirements for total of
		30 credits.

		AAS consists of AAS degree requirements of 12
		credits, 18 credits of program requirements, and
		12 credits in a concentration area (Alaska Native
		Languages, Elementary Education, Special Education,
		Counseling/Social Work, Early Childhood
		Education, Microcomputer Support Specialist,
		Rural Development), and 18 elective credits to 
		total 60 credits.

Board of Regents Summary Form

MAU:  University of Alaska Fairbanks 
College of Rural Alaska, Interior-Aleutians Campus

Title and brief description:	Educator:  Para-Professional (EDPA)
	Certificate in Educator:  Para-Professional
	AAS in Educator:  Para-Professional
	
The Educator:  Para-Professional Program is designed to prepare students to work in K-12 classrooms assisting the classroom teacher.  The EDPA curriculum emphasizes school protocols, classroom methods, management, and assessment. The EDPA program will provide the student the opportunity to develop the skills and qualities required for employment in a variety of educational settings.

The program was developed in consultation with school district personnel from the College of Rural Alaska service area, para-professionals, and state representatives from the Department of Education and Early Development under guidance of the University of Alaska Fairbanks faculty.

Target Admission Date: 	Fall, 2003

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

How does the program relate to the Education Mission of the University of Alaska?

The mission of the EDPA program is to provide academic and hands-on, skill-based education to students through flexible course delivery methods to meet the needs of both Alaska’s rural and urban based students. To this end this program meets the vocational-technical educational responsibility of the University of Alaska Fairbanks and directly affects the following UAF 2005 Strategic Plan Goals:
•	Provide high quality undergraduate education for traditional and non-traditional students
•	Form active collaborations with communities, organizations, businesses, and government to meet identified state, national, and global needs
•	Serve as a premiere higher educational center for Alaska Natives
•	Serve as a model to demonstrate how gender, race, and cultural diversity strengthen a university and society

Describe the State Needs being met by this program.

As of fall 2002, there are 2,481 FTE para-professional educators in the state of Alaska. To be in compliance with the Act, each local educational agency receiving assistance under Title I must ensure that all para-professional educators have:
a.	completed at least 2 years of study at an institution of higher education; or
b.	obtained an associate's (or higher) degree; or 
c.	met a rigorous standard of quality and can demonstrate, through a formal State or local academic  assessment:  (i) knowledge of, and the ability to assist in instructing, reading, writing, and mathematics; or (ii) knowledge of, and the ability to assist in instructing, reading readiness, writing readiness, and  mathematics readiness, as appropriate. 

These requirements must be met by existing para-professional educators by January 2006. As of January 2002, no new para-professional educators may be hired unless they have met these requirements.

The EDPA program was developed to improve educational content and classroom based skills of the para-professional educator, and to meet the requirements for para-professional educators established by the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2002. Completion of the coursework proposed for the EDPA AAS degree will also meet and exceed the Draft State of Alaska Core Competency Standards for para-professional educators developed in 2002. This program will contribute to an educated Alaskan workforce by providing a cadre of para-professional educators.

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

The EDPA program provides a career ladder opportunity for Alaskans to enter teaching and other related fields. The following concentration area options (in addition to general requirements and program requirements) are available:  Native Language, Elementary Education, Special Education, Counseling/Social Work, Early Childhood Education, Microcomputer Support Specialist, Rural Development, or other advisor approved, discipline-based concentration area. 

Enrollment Estimates CRA wide:

Year	Headcount*	Graduates	
03-04	78	20	
04-05	101	66	
05-06	131	85	
06-07	144	94	
07-08	158	103	

* Includes both full and part time

Describe the Research opportunities, if applicable.

While research is not a primary focus of this program, the delivery modes and utilization of local school district teachers as university instructors make the program a unique model which can be shared throughout the academic community. This program will provide long range research opportunities to compare the improvement of targeted Title I students before and after the required education of para-professional educators, the number of EDPA students transitioning into a four year program, specifically a teacher program and the comparison of rural/urban, Native, non-Native students to program completion. 

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

The primary faculty/program manager and administrative support will be hired through the Interior-Aleutians Campus.  Other faculty will be secured from the teaching staff of rural extended campuses as well as school district teachers, administrators and other experts and professionals qualified to teach specific courses.

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

The faculty/program manager to be hired to head the EDPA Program may reside anywhere within the region served by the Interior-Aleutians Campus, thus local facilities will not be taxed for office space. In addition, current administrative support will be used. 

Most of the resources used in the EDPA classes will be materials provided by school districts that support their curriculum.  The impact on library and technology resources are minimal and will be limited to those needed for core classes and Internet based resources.

The College of Rural Alaska community campuses will provide classroom space for EDPA training sessions. In communities without a local university facility, training space can be found in the private sector and reasonably supported by tuition fees through partnership arrangements. In addition, collaboration with school districts will provide space to teach university courses.  Therefore, through community and school district partnerships, the impact on existing UAF and CRA technology resources and facilities can be limited to existing resources.

Resource Commitment to Proposed Degree Program

Resources	Existing	New
	  Total
	
	College/School	College/School 	Others(Specify)		
Regular Faculty (FTE’s & dollars)
	
$51,365		Title III
$7,500	

$58,865	
Adjunct Faculty (FTE’s & dollars)
			Title III 
$15,000	

$15,000	
Teaching Assistants
(Headcount)					
Instructional Facilities
(in dollars and/or sq. footage)			
Partnerships:
$30,000	

$30,000	
Office Space
(Sq. footage)
					
Lab Space
(Sq. Footage)
					
Computer & Networking 
(in dollars)					
Research/instructional/office Equipment
(in dollars)					
Support Staff
(FTE’s & dollars)
		Admin. Asst.
$20,675	Title III for 
$9,014	
$29,689	
Supplies 
(in dollars)
			Title III for 
$1,000	
$1,000	
Travel
(in dollars)
			Title III for 
$4,500	
$4,500	
Totals	$51,365	$20,675	$67,014	$139,054	

Signature_____________________________    	__________
Executive Dean of College 				Date
Proposing the New Degree Program

ATTACHMENT 114/2
UAF Faculty Senate #114
March 3, 2003
SUBMITTED BY CORE REVIEW

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to add ENGL 211X or ENGL 213X (or permission of instructor) as a prerequisite for all "W" courses.

	EFFECTIVE:  	Fall 2003

		Course syllabi for "W" courses will include this prerequisite 
		beginning with Fall 2003.  This prerequisite will be added 
		to all catalog course descriptions for "W" courses for the 
		2004-2005 catalog.  

	RATIONALE:  	"W" courses are intended to allow students 
		to hone their writing skills within their chosen discipline 
		AFTER they have successfully completed the required 
		basic composition courses, ENGL 111X and ENGL 211X/ 
		213X.   We are simply suggesting an alignment of the 
		required curriculum in a manner that makes academic sense.  

		The Core document assumed this alignment in several places.  
		With respect to ENGL 211X/213X, the document states:  
			"To prepare students for the research papers, 
			the course gives students a review of library skills and 
			familiarization with the library's holdings."  

		With respect to "W" courses, the document states:  
		"Writing-Intensive and Oral Communication-Intensive Courses: 
			1.	After completing the two required writing 
			courses and one required speech course, students 
			will extend their experience by taking two designated 
			Writing-Intensive courses and one Oral Communication-
			Intensive course."  

		Faculty may certainly over-ride a prerequisite, such as the 
		one offered here, by issuing special permission.  

ATTACHMENT 114/3
UAF Faculty Senate #114
March 3, 2003
SUBMITTED BY CORE REVIEW

MOTION
=======

The Faculty Senate moves to amend the UAF catalog "Table of Substitutions: non-University of Alaska institutions" (page 14 of the 2002-03 catalog) as follows:

[[  ]]  = Deletion
CAPS = Addition

TABLE OF SUBSTITUTION

CORE CURRICULUM COURSES 	COURSES WHICH TRANSFER AS

PHIL 322X,    				an upper division course in ethics
Ethics (Values and Choices)		OR A LOWER-DIVISION COURSE IN 
						ETHICS, WITH APPROVAL OF THE 
						PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT. 

	EFFECTIVE:   	Immediately
				Upon approval of the Chancellor.
				This will appear in the 2004-05 catalog.

	RATIONALE: 	Many schools outside of the UA system offer 
		and encourage students to take a lower-division ethics 
		course.  Some of these courses are more-or-less equivalent, 
		in terms of breadth and depth of coverage, to upper-division 
		courses at UAF that satisfy the ethics core requirement.  
		Some lower-division ethics courses taught outside of the 
		UA system, however, are not equivalent to UAF ethics 
		courses.  It is manifestly unfair to transfer students to 
		retake a course already taken outside of UAF. However, 
		there is no simple mechanism to identify which lower-division 
		ethics courses are equivalent. Hence, the Philosophy Chair 
		is the designated gatekeeper.

		The Core Review Committee routinely routes all petitions 
		for an ethics course to the Philosophy Chair for review and 
		advice.  The Philosophy Chair often defers recommendations 
		to other departments offering ethics courses.  This catalog 
		change will primarily formalize our current practice; it will 
		also transfer some authority from the Core Review 
		Committee to the Philosophy Chair.  Most importantly, it 
		alerts transfer students to the possibility of using a lower-
		division ethics course to satisfy the Core ethics requirement.  
		Current wording of the catalog does not encourage students 
		to pursue this option.

ATTACHMENT 114/
UAF Faculty Senate #114
March 3, 2003
SUBMITTED BY AD HOC COMMITTEE ON UNIT CRITERIA

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve the Unit Criteria for the Cooperative Extension Service.  

	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately
				Upon Chancellor Approval

	RATIONALE:  	The committee assessed the updated unit 
		criteria submitted by the Cooperative Extension Service. 
		The unit criteria were found be consistent with UAF 
		guidelines.

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

UAF REGULATIONS FOR THE EVALUATION OF FACULTY:
INITIAL APPOINTMENT, ANNUAL REVIEW, REAPPOINTMENT,
PROMOTION, TENURE, AND SABBATICAL LEAVE

AND
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE UNIT CRITERIA
STANDARDS AND INDICES

The following is an adaptation of uaf and regents criteria for promotion and tenure, specifically developed for use in evaluating faculty in the Cooperative Extension Service.  Items in capitalized and boldface are those specifically added or emphasized because of their relevance to ces faculty, and because they are additions and clarifications to uaf regulations.  These unit criteria are for use in the annual evaluation of faculty as well.

CHAPTER I

Purview

The University of Alaska Fairbanks document, "Faculty Appointment and Evaluation Policies," supplements the Board of Regents policies and describes the purpose, conditions, eligibility, and other specifications relating to the evaluation of faculty at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF). Contained herein are regulations and procedures to guide the evaluation processes and to identify the bodies of review appropriate for the university.

The University, through the UAF Faculty Senate, may change or amend these regulations and procedures from time to time and will provide adequate notice in making changes and amendments.

These regulations shall apply to all of the units within the University of Alaska Fairbanks, except in so far as extant collective bargaining agreements apply otherwise.

The provost is responsible for coordination and implementation of matters relating to procedures stated herein.

CHAPTER II

Initial Appointment of Faculty

A.	Criteria for Initial Appointment Minimum degree, experience, and performance requirements are set forth in “UAF Faculty Policies,” Chapter IV. Exceptions to these requirements for initial placement in academic rank or special academic rank positions shall be submitted to the Chancellor or Chancellor's designee for approval prior to a final selection decision.

B.	Academic Titles 
Academic titles must reflect the discipline in which the faculty are appointed.

C.	Process for Appointment of Faculty with Academic Rank 
Deans or schools and colleges, and directors when appropriate, in conjunction with the faculty in a unit shall establish procedures for advertisement, review and selection of candidates to fill any vacant faculty position. These procedures are set by UAF Human Resources and the Campus Diversity and Compliance (AA/EEO) office and shall provide for participation in hiring by faculty and administrators as a unit. 

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BOARD OF REGENTS POLICY ON PROMOTION AND TENURE, EXTENSION AGENTS ARE EXEMPTED FROM A TRIPARTITE RESPONSIBILITY. SUCH FACULTY HAVE BIPARTITE RESPONSIBILITY. THE BIPARTITE RESPONSIBILITIES ARE TO BE CLEARLY STATED AT THE TIME OF HIRE AND CAN BE ANY COMBINATION OF TWO OF THE THREE TRIPARTITE MISSIONS, I.E., TEACHING, RESEARCH, OR SERVICE IN COMBINATION. EXTENSION SPECIALISTS AND OTHER EXTENSION FACULTY HAVE A TRIPARTITE RESPONSIBILITY.

THE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE FACULTY HAS DEVELOPED A POLICY ON MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS FOR FACULTY WHICH PROVIDES GUIDELINES FOR THE MENTORING SYSTEM. FACULTY MEMBERS SHALL BE INFORMED OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAINTAIN A VOLUNTARY MENTORING RELATIONSHIP DURING THEIR CAREER DEVELOPMENT PRIOR TO THE AWARD OF TENURE.

D.	Process for Appointment of Faculty with Special Academic Rank 
Deans and/or directors, in conjunction with the faculty in a unit, shall establish procedures for advertisement, review, and selection of candidates to fill any faculty positions as they become available. Such procedures shall be consistent with the university's stated AA/EEO policies and shall provide for participation in hiring by faculty and administrators in the unit. 

E.	Following the Selection Process 
The dean or director shall appoint the new faculty member and advise him/her of the conditions, benefits, and obligations of the position. If the appointment is to be at the professor level, the dean/director must first obtain the concurrence of the chancellor or chancellor’s designee.

F.	Letter of Appointment 
	The initial letter of appointment shall specify the nature of the assignment, the percentage emphasis that is to be placed on each of the parts of the faculty responsibility, mandatory year of tenure review, and any special conditions relating to the appointment. 

	This letter of appointment establishes the nature of the position and, while the percentage of emphasis for each part may vary with each workload distribution as specified in the annual workload agreement document, the part(s) defining the position may not.

CHAPTER III

Periodic Evaluation of Faculty

A.	General Criteria 
Criteria outlined in “UAF Faculty Appointment and Evaluation Policies,” Chapter IV, AND CES UNIT CRITERIA, STANDARDS AND INDICES, evaluators may consider, but shall not be limited to, whichever of the following are appropriate to the faculty member's professional obligation: mastery of subject matter; effectiveness in teaching; achievement in research, scholarly, and creative activity; effectiveness of public service; effectiveness of university service; demonstration of professional development and quality of total contribution to the university.

For purposes of evaluation at UAF, the total contribution to the university and activity in the areas outlined above will be defined by relevant activity and demonstrated competence from the following areas: 1) effectiveness in teaching; 2) achievement in scholarly activity; and 3) effectiveness of service.

Bipartite Faculty 
Bipartite faculty are regular academic rank faculty who fill positions that are designated as performing two of the three parts of the university's tripartite responsibility.

The dean or director of the relevant college/school shall determine which of the criteria defined above apply to these faculty.

Bipartite faculty may voluntarily engage in a tripartite function, but they will not be required to do so as a condition for evaluation, promotion, or tenure.

B.	Criteria for Instruction
A central function of the university is instruction of students in formal courses and supervised study. Teaching includes those activities directly related to the formal and informal transmission of appropriate skills and knowledge to students. The nature of instruction will vary for each faculty member, depending upon workload distribution and the particular teaching mission of the unit. Instruction includes actual contact in classroom, correspondence or electronic delivery methods, laboratory or field and preparatory activities, such as preparing for lectures, setting up demonstrations, and preparing for laboratory experiments, as well as individual/independent study, tutorial sessions, evaluations, correcting papers, and determining grades. Other aspects of teaching and instruction extend to undergraduate and graduate academic advising and counseling, training graduate students and serving on their graduate committees particularly as their major advisor, curriculum development, and academic recruiting and retention activities.

1.	Effectiveness in Teaching

STANDARD ACADEMIC TEACHING IS NOT A COMMON FORM OF INFORMATION DELIVERY IN THE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE. INSTRUCTION OFTEN INCLUDES CONTACT WITH CLIENTELE THROUGH DISTANCE DELIVERY METHODS, WORKSHOPS, SEMINARS, TRAINING AND PUBLIC INFORMATION EVENTS.

Evidence of excellence in teaching may be demonstrated through, but not limited to, evidence of the various characteristics that define effective teachers. Effective teachers:

a.	are highly organized, plan carefully, use class time efficiently, have clear objectives, have high expectations for students AND CLIENTELE;

b.	express positive regard for students, BECOME FAMILIAR WITH THEIR PUBLIC, develop good rapport with students AND CLIENTELE, show interest/enthusiasm for the subject;

c.	emphasize and encourage student participation, ask questions, frequently monitor student AND CLIENTELE participation for student learning and teacher effectiveness, are sensitive to student AND CLIENTELE diversity;

d.	emphasize regular feedback to students and reward student learning success;

e.	demonstrate content mastery, discuss current information and divergent points of view, relate topics to other disciplines, deliver material at the appropriate level;

f.	regularly develop new courses, workshops and seminars and use a variety of methods of instructional delivery and instructional design;

g.	may receive prizes and awards for excellence in teaching.

2.	Components of Evaluation 
Effectiveness in teaching will be evaluated through information on formal and informal teaching, course and curriculum material, recruiting and advising, training/guiding graduate students, etc., provided by:

a.	systematic student ratings i.e. student opinion of instruction summary forms, and at least two of the following:

b.	narrative self‑evaluation,

c.	peer/department chair classroom observation(s),

d.	peer/department chair evaluation of course materials.

EVALUATION OF TEACHING IN AN EXTENSION CONTEXT:

TEACHING IS DEFINED AS A FORMAL PRESENTATION OF RESEARCH BASED SUBJECT MATTER. EFFECTIVE TEACHING IS COMPLEX, BUT MUST PROVIDE A LEARNING EXPERIENCE ENABLING THE LEARNER TO GAIN KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND/OR CHANGES IN ATTITUDES/BEHAVIOR. IT SHALL BE EVALUATED WHENEVER POSSIBLE.

EXTENSION EDUCATION DIFFERS FROM RESIDENT EDUCATION IN THAT IT ADDRESSES CLIENTELE AND PUBLIC NEEDS BY DELIVERING INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THOSE NEEDS.

STANDARDS AND INDICES OF TEACHING ACTIVITY IN THE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE:

TEACHING AND TRANSFER OF KNOWLEDGE ARE CHARACTERIZED BY:

A.	COURSES, WORKSHOPS, SEMINARS, DEMONSTRATIONS AND CURRICULUM OR PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT.

B.	EDUCATIONAL VIDEOTAPES AND/OR OTHER MEDIA PRODUCED FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION, THAT REQUIRES RESEARCH AND PREPARATION.

INDICES FOR DOCUMENTING EFFECTIVE TEACHING IN AN EXTENSION CONTEXT INCLUDE:

A.	DOCUMENTATION OF TEACHING TO MEET A FACULTY MEMBER’S AGREED UPON WORKLOAD.

B. 	DOCUMENTATION OF CHANGES IN KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND/OR ATTITUDES/BEHAVIOR RESULTING FROM CES INFORMATION TRANSFER.

C. 	DEMONSTRATING THAT CES TEACHING IS A RESPONSE TO CLIENTELE NEEDS.

D.	SYSTEMATIC CLIENTELE EVALUATION OF BOTH THE PROGRAM AND THE INSTRUCTOR.

E.	UNSOLICITED TESTIMONIALS.

F.	DOCUMENTATION OF CONTACT HOURS WITH CLIENTELE RELATIVE TO POTENTIAL AUDIENCES.

G.	EVIDENCE OF CREATIVITY AND SUCCESS IN DISTANCE DELIVERY EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING.

EXAMPLES OF EXCELLENCE IN TEACHING PERFORMANCE WHICH QUALIFIES A CES FACULTY MEMBER FOR PROMOTION TO THE RANK OF FULL PROFESSOR MAY INCLUDE:

1.	DEVELOPMENT AND/OR ADAPTATION OF NEW METHODS AND APPROACHES IN THE DISCIPLINE, SUCH AS:

A.	CREATIVE USE OF MEDIA FOR CLIENTELE EDUCATION WHICH EXTENDS THE BOUNDS OF THE DISCIPLINE AND IMPROVES EDUCATIONAL OUTREACH.

B.	CURRICULUM OR PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, WHICH ENHANCES TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS.

2.	RECEIPT OF STATE OR NATIONAL AWARDS IN RECOGNITION OF OUTSTANDING TEACHING.

3.	CONTINUED EXCELLENT CLIENTELE/STUDENT REVIEWS AND EVALUATIONS AS A TEACHER.

4.	RECOGNITION THROUGH INVITATIONAL TEACHING OPPORTUNITIES.

C.	Criteria for Research, Scholarly, and Creative Activity
Inquiry and originality are central functions of a land grant/sea grant/space grant university and all faculty with a research component in their assignment must remain active as scholars. Consequently, faculty are expected to conduct research or engage in other scholarly or creative pursuits that are appropriate the mission of their unit, and equally important, results of their work must be disseminated through media appropriate to their discipline. Furthermore, it is important to emphasize the distinction between routine production and creative excellence as evaluated by an individual's peers at the University of Alaska and elsewhere.

FACULTY ARE EXPECTED TO CONDUCT APPLIED RESEARCH OR ENGAGE IN OTHER SCHOLARLY OR CREATIVE PURSUITS THAT ARE APPROPRIATE TO THE MISSION OF THE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE. CONSISTENT WITH THIS MISSION, EXTENSION FACULTY PROVIDE THE PUBLIC WITH RESEARCH BASED INFORMATION IN AN EASILY UNDERSTOOD FORMAT THAT CAN BE APPLIED TO DAILY LIVING AND IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE. COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE BULLETINS, FACT SHEETS AND PUBLICATIONS SHALL BE CONSIDERED A MAJOR PART OF THE DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION BY EXTENSION FACULTY. COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE FACULTY HAVE VERY LIMITED OPPORTUNITIES TO CONDUCT TRADITIONAL RESEARCH AND VERY LIMITED ACCESS TO LABORATORIES AND GRADUATE STUDENTS. ADDITIONALLY, BIPARTITE FACULTY MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE A RESEARCH OBLIGATION.

1.	Achievement in Research, Scholarly, and Creative Activity
Whatever the contribution, research, scholarly or creative activities must have one or more of the following characteristics:

a.	They must occur in a public forum.

b.	They must be evaluated by appropriate peers.

c.	They must be evaluated by peers external to this institution so as to allow an objective judgment.

d.	They must be judged to make a contribution.

2.	Components of Research, Scholarly and Creative Activity
Evidence of excellence in research, scholarly, and creative activity may be demonstrated through, but not limited to:

a.	 Books, reviews, monographs, bulletins, articles, proceedings and other scholarly works published by reputable journals, scholarly presses, and publishing houses that accept works only after rigorous review and approval by peers in the discipline.

b.	Competitive grants and contracts to finance the development of ideas; these grants and contracts being subject to rigorous peer review and approval.

c.	Presentation of research papers before learned societies that accept papers only after rigorous review and approval by peers.

d.	Exhibitions of art works at galleries, selection for these exhibitions being based on rigorous review and approval by PEERS, juries, recognized artists, or critics.

e.	Performance in recitals or productions; selection for these performances being based on stringent auditions and approval by appropriate judges.

f.	Editing or refereeing articles or proposals for professional journals or organizations AND CES PUBLICATIONS.

g.	Scholarly reviews of publications, art works and performance of the candidate.

h.	Citations of research in scholarly publications.

i.	Published abstracts of research papers.

	j.	Reprints or quotations of publications, reproductions of art works, and descriptions of interpretations in the performing arts, these materials appearing in reputable works of the discipline.

k.		Prizes and awards for excellence of scholarship.

l.	Awards of special fellowships for research or artistic activities or selection of tours of duty at special institutes for advanced study.

m.	Development of processes or instruments useful in solving problems, such as computer programs and systems for the processing of data, genetic plant and animal material, and where appropriate obtaining patents and/or copyrights for said development.

N.	AWARDS OF SPECIAL FELLOWSHIPS TO DEVELOP IDEAS.

O.	AUTHORSHIP OF ONE OR MANY CES PUBLICATIONS OR ARTICLES WITHIN CES PUBLICATIONS  BASED ON ORIGINAL RESEARCH WHICH MEETS THE CRITERIA SET FORTH IN CHAPTER III C.1. OF THIS DOCUMENT WILL BE DEEMED EQUAL TO ONE WORK PUBLISHED IN A NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL (THE NUMBER TO BE DETERMINED AND DESIGNATED BY THE CES PEER REVIEW COMMITTEE ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS ACCORDING TO THE LENGTH AND COMPLEXITY OF EACH PUBLICATION OR ARTICLE).

P.	NEW AND UNIQUE ADAPTATIONS OF EXISTING RESEARCH-BASED TECHNOLOGY OR KNOWLEDGE IN ORDER TO SOLVE PROBLEMS RELEVANT TO ALASKA.

EXCELLENCE IN THE AREA OF RESEARCH OR SCHOLARLY ACTIVITY IN EXTENSION, WHICH QUALIFIES A FACULTY MEMBER FOR PROMOTION TO FULL PROFESSOR MAY INCLUDE:

1. 	AUTHORSHIP OF A BOOK OR MAJOR REFERENCE IN THE FACULTY MEMBER'S AREA OF SCHOLARLY ACTIVITY.

2.	RECEIPT OF A NATIONAL RESEARCH FELLOWSHIP.

3.	CONTINUOUS PERFORMANCE IN RESEARCH WITH A CORRESPONDING PUBLICATION RECORD.

4.	INTRODUCTION OF A NEW TECHNOLOGY, PRODUCT, OR IDEA WHICH DEMONSTRABLY IMPROVES THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALASKANS, AND IS A CLEAR RESULT OF A FACULTY MEMBER'S EXTENSION ACTIVITY.

D.	Criteria for Public and University Service
Public service is intrinsic to the land grant/sea grant/space grant tradition, and is fundamental part of the university's obligation to the people of its state. In this tradition, faculty providing their professional expertise for the benefit of the university's external constituency, free of charge, is identified as "public service." The tradition of the university itself provides that its faculty assume a collegial obligation for the internal functioning of the institution; such service is identified as "university service."

	1.	Public Service
Public service is the application of teaching, research, and other scholarly and creative activity to constituencies outside the University of Alaska Fairbanks. It includes all activities which extend the faculty member's professional, academic, or leadership competence to these constituencies. It can be instructional, collaborative, or consultative in nature and is related to the faculty member's discipline or other publicly recognized expertise. Public service may be systematic activity that involves planning with clientele and delivery of information on a continuing, programmatic basis. It may also be informal, individual, professional contributions to the community or to one's discipline, or other activities in furtherance the goals and mission of the university and its units. Such service may occur on a periodic or limited‑term basis. Examples include, but are not limited to:

a.	Providing information services to adults or youth.

b.	Service on or to government or public committees.

c.	Service on accrediting bodies.

d.	Active participation in professional organizations.

e.	Active participation in discipline‑oriented service organizations.

f.	Consulting IN THE FACULTY MEMBER'S AREA OF EXPERTISE AND THE DISCIPLINE CONSISTENT WITH THE OBLIGATION FOR PUBLIC SERVICE.

g.	Prizes and awards for excellence in public service.

h.	Leadership of or presentations at workshops, conferences, or public meetings.

i.	Training and facilitating.

j.	Radio and TV programs, newspaper articles and columns, publications, newsletters, films, computer applications, teleconferences and other educational media.

k.	Judging and similar educational assistance at science fairs, state fairs, and speech, drama, literary, and similar competitions.

L.	ASSESSING THE RESEARCH NEEDS OF CLIENTELE AND COMMUNICATING THOSE NEEDS TO THE RESEARCH COMMUNITY.

M.	MANAGING AN EFFECTIVE VOLUNTEER PROGRAM TO HELP EXTEND CES RESOURCES OR DEVELOP LEADERSHIP SKILLS.

N.	REPRESENTING AND ANSWERING QUESTIONS AT CES EDUCATIONAL DISPLAYS, BOOTHS AND EXHIBITS AT PUBLIC EVENTS.

2.	University Service
University service includes those activities involving faculty members in the governance, administration, and other internal affairs of the university, its colleges, schools, and institutes. It includes non-instructional work with students and their organizations. Examples of such activity include, but are not limited to:

a.	Service on university, college, school, institute, or departmental committees or governing bodies.

b.	Consultative work in support of university functions, such as expert assistance for specific projects.

c.	Service as department chair, PROGRAM CHAIR, OFFICE COORDINATOR or term-limited and part-time assignment as assistant/associate dean in a college/school.

d.	Participation in accreditation reviews.

e.	Service on collective bargaining unit committees or elected office.

f.	Service in support of student organizations and activities.

g.	Academic support services such as library and museum programs.

h.	Assisting other faculty or units with curriculum planning and delivery of instruction, such as serving as guest lecturer. 

3.	Evaluation of Service
Each individual faculty member's proportionate responsibility in service shall be reflected in annual workload agreements. In formulating criteria, standards and indices for evaluation, promotion, and tenure, individual units should include examples of service activities and measures for evaluation for that unit. Excellence in public and university service may be demonstrated through, e.g., appropriate letters of commendation, recommendation, and/or appreciation, certificates and awards and other public means of recognition for services rendered.

STANDARDS AND INDICES FOR PUBLIC AND UNIVERSITY SERVICE:

IN ADDITION TO UNIVERSITY REGULATIONS ON THE EVALUATION OF PUBLIC SERVICE, THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES FURTHER EXEMPLIFY PUBLIC SERVICE STANDARDS IN EXTENSION'S ROLE:

A.	INITIATION AND FACILITATION OF PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL EVENTS.

B.	PRODUCING AND PUBLISHING POPULAR PRESS ARTICLES AND NEWSLETTERS.

C.	MEDIA PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLIC INTERVIEWS, E.G., TV, RADIO, FILM, NEWSPAPERS AND VIDEOTAPES.

D.	DEMONSTRATED ABILITY TO RESPOND TO NEW KNOWLEDGE AND DEVELOPMENTS IN THE DISCIPLINE BY RAPIDLY RAISING PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING AND AWARENESS THROUGH AVAILABLE EDUCATIONAL MEDIA AND METHODS.

E.	INDIVIDUAL INSTRUCTION, INCLUDING PERSONAL CONSULTATIONS.

F.	EXEMPLARY RESPONSE IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS RENDERED IN AN EXTENSION ROLE, AS AGENT OR STATEWIDE SPECIALIST, TO CLIENTELE WHICH FACED THE EMERGENCY/IES.

INDICES FOR PUBLIC SERVICE PERFORMANCE BY COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE FACULTY:

A.	CES PUBLICATIONS WITH A DOCUMENTED RECORD OF INTERNAL PEER REVIEW. ADDITIONAL REVIEW OUTSIDE CES IS ENCOURAGED.

B.	DOCUMENTATION OF SERVICE ACTIVITIES PLANNED ON A CONTINUING PROGRAMMATIC BASIS.

C.	UNSOLICITED TESTIMONIALS DEMONSTRATING OUTCOMES AND/OR EFFECTIVENESS OF SERVICE ACTIVITIES.

D.	AWARDS AND RECOGNITIONS FROM THE PUBLIC SECTOR.

E.	DOCUMENTING PUBLIC NEEDS AND BRINGING TO BEAR THE RESOURCES OF THE UNIVERSITY AND OTHER ENTITIES IN MEETING THOSE NEEDS.

F.	DEMONSTRATING THE IMPACTS WHICH RESULT FROM PUBLIC SERVICE THROUGH EXTENSION.

EXCELLENCE IN SERVICE OR RECOGNITION OF SERVICE WHICH QUALIFIES A CES FACULTY MEMBER FOR PROMOTION TO FULL PROFESSOR MAY INCLUDE:

1.	INVITATIONAL SERVICE ON NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL BOARDS, REVIEW COMMITTEES, AWARD COMMISSIONS OR SCHOLARSHIP COMMISSIONS.

2.	NATIONAL LEADERSHIP IN A PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION.

3.	RECOGNITION THROUGH INVITATIONAL SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS ON TOPICS WHICH CONSTITUTE PUBLIC SERVICE.

4.	OUTSTANDING UNIVERSITY SERVICE, SUCH AS SERVICE AS A FACULTY SENATE OFFICER, FACULTY SENATE COMMITTEE CHAIR, OR MEMBER OF A MAJOR ADMINISTRATIVE SEARCH COMMITTEE.

5.	RECOGNITION THROUGH RECEIPT OF PUBLIC SERVICE AWARDS, OR AWARDS FOR SERVICE TO THE UNIVERSITY.

6.	RECEIPT OF A NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, USDA, OR PROFESSIONAL SOCIETY SERVICE AWARD.

7.	PARTICIPATION IN A VOLUNTARY MENTORING RELATIONSHIP WITH JUNIOR FACULTY TO FACILITATE THEIR PROGRESS TOWARD PROMOTION AND TENURE.

Revised December 2002

ATTACHMENT 114/5
UAF Faculty Senate #114
March 3, 2003
SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS

Curricular Affairs Committee Meeting Report

The Curricular Affairs committee held audioconferenced meetings on 29 Jan 2003 and 12 Feb 2003 from 1015 am to 1145 am.  Members present included Mike Hannigan, Wanda Martin, David Barnes, Eduard Zilberkant, Rainer Newberry, Carol Barnhardt, James Gladden, Gary Holton, William Schneider, Gayle Gregory, Ron Slominski, Shannon Uzzell, and Ron Illingworth.  Guests included Peggy Wood, NW Campus Director, Curt Madison, CDE Director, Clara Johnson, IAC Campus Director, Regina Zimmerman, NWC, Karen Ladegard, EDPA Academic Program Head, Tom Pennington, Chukchi Campus, and Kas Aruskovich, IAC

All meetings were audioconferenced as some members of the committee are from outside Fairbanks.

The committee addressed the following issues:
1.	EDPA proposal.  
The committee discussed the proposed new AAS and Certificate in  Educator:  Para-Professional which is designed to meet the educational needs for teacher-aides established by the No Child Left Behind act.  At the 29 January  meeting a number of suggestions were made that would provide clarification to the degree.  Changes were incorporated and the proposal was brought back to the 12 February meeting where it was approved.  The motion was sent to the Faculty Senate for the 3 March 2003 meeting.

2.	Tabled Motion from Core Review Committee.
The Curricular Affairs committee discussed the tabled motion from the core review committee which would establish ENGL 211/213 as a prerequisite for all “W” courses.  After discussion the committee decided to request that the words “or permission of the instructor” be added to the motion from Core Review.  Additionally, we request that specific information be added to the catalog which address the “W/O” requirements and which would explain these requirements to students.  The only explanation of this requirement currently exists in a document on the UAF web site (http://www.uaf.edu/corerev/guidelines.htm) and in a document establishing the core which is not widely available to students.

The next meeting of the Curricular Affairs Committee is scheduled for 26 February, 2003.

Respectfully submitted
Ronald D. Illingworth, Chair
Curricular Affairs Committee

ATTACHMENT 114/6
UAF Faculty Senate #114
March 3, 2003
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY AFFAIRS

FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
Wednesday 12 February 2003
Runcorn Conference room, NSF 300, 3 PM

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

Old Business:
1.	Spouse Appointment Policy (Bult-Ito, Luick)
	The Committee discussed a revised draft policy. Questions arose concerning the EEO regulations, the application to staff and administrators and general application of the policy. Several changes to the existing text were suggested and the Committee asked that the policy be sent to Carolyn Chapman,  Human Resources Office, and Earlina Bowden, Campus Diversity and Compliance Office. The Committee would try to complete the final revision and voting by email so the policy could be sent to the Senate for the next meeting.

2.	Graduate Dean position (Simmons)
The Committee discussed the position announcement released by the Provost’s Office specifically with respect to the resolution concerning this position passed by the Senate in December. The calendar for the position as advertised did not appear to allow adequate time for external candidates to apply, which concerned all committee members and was considered contrary to the spirit of the resolution.

3.	UAF Budget liaison 
Abel Bult-Ito, budget liaison for the Faculty Senate, reports a lack of cooperation by Administration regarding the questions he posed last semester. Abel will again contact Joe Trubacz, Director of financial Services, and Ted DeLaca, Vice Provost for Research, for information. 

Abel also distributed a document concerning budget planning concepts. A specific concern was the consequences of reallocation for faculty positions.

4.  	Parking 
Shirish Patil, Chair of the new Parking Subcommittee of the Master Planning Committee (PS/MPC), reported that parking is now on a very fast track. He circulated a draft of Scope of Work of the Parking Circulation Plan that required comment within 2 days.  Committee members reiterated concerns about parking from the previous Master Plan that had been reviewed last year. 

5.	Classified Research  (McRoy)
The Ad Hoc Committee on Classified Research is trying to have a draft of a policy concerning classified and proprietary research ready for the Senate this semester. A joint meeting will be held with the Classified Research committee and Faculty Affairs.

6.	Bookstore Policy & Procedures (Mark Box)
The Committee had received several faculty complaints about current Bookstore procedures. Mark Box and Joan Leguard were asked to revisit the Bookstore staff to discuss the problems. Their report follows.
	Joan Leguard, Peter Schweitzer, and Mark Box met with Becky Phillips and her textbook coordinator, Steve Tate, to discuss the reported mishaps of this semester. The assessment we made concerning the complaints about which we knew was that (a) the store is no longer willfully substituting titles in contravention of teachers' orders and (b) at this point we are dealing with simple mistakes.  It appears that the mistakes are not all on the side of the bookstore.  Confusion about whether books are in fact available on the shelves seems to stem from cases in which the store is unaware that courses are cross listed.  As for pricing, it might be unrealistic to expect the store to compete with Amazon.com, which has not had to operate at a profit for most of its existence.  Our big concern was the shipping bill for texts ordered late due to late additions to the course offerings.  I am not sure that we have an answer for that problem yet.  The upshot is that the store is trying sincerely.  I do not believe that we will ever contrive a foolproof procedure, but the store and the faculty can stay in touch and address problems as they come up.  Steve Tate will address the senate in the next meeting about these particulars.

New Business

Due to another group scheduled for the meeting room the FA Committee adjourned abruptly after 1 hour without considering new business.

ATTACHMENT 114/7
UAF Faculty Senate #114
March 3, 2003
SUBMITTED BY GRADUATE ACADEMIC & ADVISORY 

GRADUATE ACADEMIC AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE
REPORT OF MEETING 

Friday January 31, 2002
3:30 p.m. Rasmuson Library Room 341

Committee Members Present
Ed Bueler, Mathematics; Mary Erhlander, History; Abijit Dandekar, Pet. Engineering; Zhonggo Ma, Civ. And Env. Engineering; Meriam Karlsson, Plant/Animal/Soil Sci.; Maribeth Murray, Anthropology (Chair); Christa Mulder, Biology and Wildlife/IAB; Rolf Gradinger, SFOS; Ron Slominski, Registrar

Guests
Paul Reichardt, Provost

The meeting commenced at 3:30 p.m. 

1) The first item of business was the introduction of the new GSO representative to the committee.  The committee was pleased to welcome Rob Nicholson, a graduate student in Geology.

2) Revision of graduate study forms. The committee received a request to consider modifying the 1) Advancement to Candidacy form and 2) the Change of Committee form to add a line to add a line for a dated signature by the graduate student.  The chair of GAAC will draft a memo to this effect for review at the next meeting, and also recommend that, after the Graduate School Dean signs the forms, a copy is returned to the student for their records.

3) The following Course Requests were approved:
	Geology and Geophysics – GEOS 445-645
	Biology and Wildlife – BIOL 694
	Economics – ECON 694

4) A draft memo regarding recommendations for updating catalogue descriptions of existing and new courses that are offered in both conventional and on-line modes of delivery was reviewed and approved by the committee.  The GAAC/Faculty Senate will forward this memo to Department Heads, the Graduate School Dean and the University Registrar’s Office.

5) Discussion of proposal to change the number of credits for non-thesis project option of the MS/MA degree was held over to the February 14 2003 meeting.

6) There was discussion of the proposal to lower the number of credits in which a graduate student must enroll in order to maintain active status from three to one.  The committee thought this was reasonable for those students who had advanced to candidacy and for those students who may be absent from the university for extended periods conducting research, or taking their courses at one of the other MAU's.  Decision on action to be taken, if any, was held over to the February 14 2003 meeting.

7) Provost Reichardt spoke to the committee about the position of Dean of the Graduate School (current) and the new position for Dean of the Graduate School and Vice Provost for Instructional Affairs.  The GAAC would like the opportunity to meet candidates for the new position and the Chair of GAAC will forward a request to the Chair of the Search Committee, Dean David Woodall.  The chair of the GAAC will circulate copies of the advertisement to the committee members.

Meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.

ATTACHMENT 114/8
UAF Faculty Senate #114
March 3, 2003
SUBMITTED BY CORE REVIEW

Minutes of Core Review Committee Meeting, 17 February 2003
Submitted by Douglas Schamel, Chair

Members present:  D.A. Bartlett, Jill Faudree, John Heaton, Paul McCarthy, and Douglas Schamel.  

Members absent:  Jin Brown, Mary Goodwin.

Guests present:  Wanda Martin.

1)  We acted on 6 petitions:  5 were approved and 1 was not approved.

2)  We discussed the fate of our motion re. ENGL 211X/213X at the last Senate meeting.  The committee voted unanimously on a revised motion that will be presented at the next Senate meeting.

3)  We voted unanimously to send a motion to the Senate clarifying transfer of ethics courses to UAF.  This motion was formulated after consultation with Michael Jennings (PHIL).

4)  We decided NOT to add clarifying language to the Core document in the UAF catalog re. ENGL 211X/213X.  The wording was deemed unnecessary.

5)  The committee struggled with apparent discrepancies in the use of foreign language credit in lieu of Perspectives courses.  We may pursue clarification with Foreign Language, ANL, and ASL faculty.

6)  Committee Chair Schamel debriefed the committee on his visit with Foreign Language faculty on 14 Feb.  The intent of that visit was to answer questions about assessment of the Core, "W" and "O" courses, and the intent of the UAF Core.  It was a fruitful meeting.

7)  Committee Chair Schamel also answered questions at a meeting of CRA on 18 Feb.  There is a real concern amongst rural faculty that some of our Core courses are culturally insensitive and that the notion of "one size fits all" courses is not really serving the needs of rural sites very well.

8)  The next meeting is set for 3 March at 0915-1015.

ATTACHMENT 114/9
UAF Faculty Senate #114
March 3, 2003
SUBMITTED BY DEVELOPMENTAL STUDIES

Minutes of The Developmental Studies Committee
February 20, 2003, 2-3:30pm
Chancellors Conference Room

Present:  Judy Atkinson, Patty Baldwin, John Bruder, Rich Carr, John Creed, Cindy Hardy, Marjie Illingworth, Ron Illingworth, Joe Mason, Debbie Moses, Jake Poole, Jane Weber.

The committee met and reviewed the current draft of the Developmental Education recommendations, incorporating changes and corrections recommended by the committee.   In the time we had, we were able to proceed to Recommendation 11, looking for consistency of language and concept from recommendation to recommendation.  Recommendation 8--the result of the work of three subcommittees--still needs more revision for consistent language and format in the three areas it addresses.  A subcommittee of Marjie Illingworth, Cindy Hardy, and Jane Weber will go over these for consistency and continuity.  The subgroup will meet Thursday, February 27, 2 p.m.

The next committee meetings will be March 13 and April 3, 2-3:30 p.m.

The face-to-face meeting is planned for May 14, prior to the planned CRA-wide meeting May 15 and 16.

ATTACHMENT 114/10
UAF Faculty Senate #114
March 3, 2003
SUBMITTED BY AD HOC COMMITTEE ON UNIT CRITERIA

MINUTES
Ad Hoc Committee on Unit Criteria
February 19, 2003

Members present: Dan Odess, Gary Holton (chair), Abel Bult-Ito

Guests: Roxie Dinstel (Coop. Extension)

Old Business:
1. School of Management criteria
The chair noted that the committee had not received any of the requested revisions to the SOM proposal. The committee proceeded to discuss the existing proposal, as submitted last fall. During the discussion the committee raised two primary objections to the proposal. First, the proposal does not follow the format of the university evaluation procedures, making it both difficult to evaluate and difficult to apply the criteria. It is particularly unclear how T/P committees would apply the quantitative metrics contained in the proposal. Second, the committee objected to the numerous references to faculty workload in the document, particularly language which indicates that faculty would be evaluated based on a 50% research load, even if their "negotiated" workload differed from this. The committee feels strongly that the issue of workload assignment and T/P evaluation should be separated. Workloads are negotiated between a faculty member and her/his supervisor; evaluations should be based proportionately on those workloads. In addition to these two primary objections, the committee noted that there are still objections to the proposed criteria from a significant portion of the SOM faculty which need to be resolved. 

After this discussion the committee voted unanimously against approval of the SOM criteria. 

2. Journalism criteria
The committee has not yet received a reformatted version of the criteria from the department. The committee voted unanimously to delay action on the criteria until they receive a document which is formatted based on current blue book procedures. The chair will inquire as to the status of that document.

New Business:
1. Cooperative Extension Service (CES) criteria
Roxie Dinstel presented the proposed criteria to the committee. The document represents a revision to CES criteria approved in 1993. Current regulations require that existing unit criteria be re-approved every five years. The committee was generally impressed with the quality of the document received, both in terms of content and presentation. The manuscript included revision marks indicating changes to the original 1993 document and footnotes explaining and justifying CES amendments to university evaluation procedures. The committee noted that while these revision marks and footnotes will not appear in the final printed document, but they greatly facilitate the review process and will surely aid future re-assessment of the criteria. 

The committee recommended two minor changes to the document:
--In research add "based on original research" between the words "publications" and "which" under item O. 
--In service add "demonstrating outcomes and/or effectiveness of service activities" after the words “unsolicited testimonials” in item c. 

Roxie informed the committee of a new CES "whitepaper" intended to guide faculty in the review process. The committee noted that this "whitepaper" could be a great help to reviewers as well, since the unique nature of CES assignments may obscure boundaries between traditional teaching, research and service categories. The committee recommended that this "whitepaper" be included as an appendix to the criteria. 

After this discussion the committee voted unanimously to approved the CES criteria, with the changes recommended above. Roxie will forward an amended document to the senate.

Discussion Item:
1. UAF Museum Curator Responsibilities
Dan Odess presented a document drawn up by curators at the UAF Museum which explains the unique responsibilities of curator assignments. Dan noted that while curators are often supervised by the museum director, their T/P evaluation occurs within tenure-granting departments, such as anthropology, biology, etc. These departments and associated peer-review committees and deans may not be familiar with curator responsibilities. The committee agreed in principle that the proposed document is useful and discussed two possible routes for formalizing such a document. The existing document (perhaps with minor modifications) could be forwarded to the senate for approval as "Unit Review Guidelines". An alternative and perhaps more effective route would be to develop the guidelines document into a set of unit criteria for the UAF Museum. The committee noted that since the museum does not grant tenure, it may not be able to have unit criteria of its own. But inasmuch as unit criteria are intended to inform the P/T process, the committee feels that unit criteria would be the appropriate status for such a document. In either case, such a document would need to be approved by a majority of museum faculty and forwarded from the museum director to the provost.

2. "Unapproved" criteria
The committee discussed the putative use in P/T files of unit criteria which have not been approved by the senate or have lapsed beyond the five-year limit. It was suggested that P/T file preparation guidelines could more strongly reference *approved* criteria, perhaps including a link the webpage which lists approved criteria. The extent of the problem is not clear. The committee noted that a large part of the problem might be resolved if CSEM criteria were to be approved. The old CNS criteria, which have lapsed beyond the five-year limit, appear to have been relabeled CSEM and used in many files. This seems inappropriate since the change from CNS to CSEM represents a structural change, not just a name change. The committee is aware that CSEM is currently developing unit criteria, and the committee will inquire as to the status of those criteria.