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 #115
Monday, April 7, 2003
1:00 p.m. - 3:30 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 #114
		C.	Adoption of Agenda

1:05	II	Status of Chancellor's Office Actions 		  5 Min.
		A.	Motions Approved:  
			1.	Motion to approve a Certificate and A.A.S. 
				in Educator: Para-Professional.
			2.	Motion to amend the transfer guidelines 
				for UAF core curriculum  courses.
			3.	Motion to approve adding ENGL 211 or 
				213 (or permission of instructor) as a 
				prerequisite for all Writing Intensive courses.
			4.	Motion to approve the Unit Criteria for 
				the Cooperative Extension Service.
		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 Speaker - Kim Stone,			20 Min.
			International Programs

1:50 	IV	Rural Campus Comments   				15 Min. 
		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.
	E.	Faculty Liaison - E. Kopacz				  5 Min.

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

2:45	VI	New Business						30 Min.
	A.	Nomination for President-Elect & Election 
		(Attachment 115/1)
	B.	Resolution for Outstanding Senator of the Year 
		Award, submitted by OSYA Screening Committee 
		(Attachment 115/2)
	C.	Motion on Faculty Mentoring, submitted by Faculty 
		Development, Assessment, and Improvement 
		(Attachment 115/3)
	D.	Motion on Evaluation of Administrators for Group B, 
		submitted by Faculty Appeals & Oversight 
		(Attachment 115/4)
	E.	Motion to approve the Unit Criteria for the School of 
		Management, submitted by the Ad Hoc Committee 
		on Unit Criteria (Attachment 115/5)
	E.	Motion on Spousal Hire Policy, submitted by Faculty 
		Affairs (Attachment 115/6)
	F.	Motion on Classified Research, submitted by Faculty 
		Affairs (Attachment 115/7)

3:15	VII	Committee Reports 					15 Min.
	A.	Curricular Affairs - R. Illingworth (Attachment 115/8)
	B.	Faculty Affairs - P. McRoy
	C.	Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee – M. Murray
	D.	Core Review - D. Schamel
	E.	Curriculum Review - G. Holton
	F.	Developmental Studies - J. Weber
	G.	Faculty Appeals & Oversight - P. Layer 
	H.	Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement – 
		A. Bult-Ito (Attachment 115/9)
	I.	Ad Hoc Committee on Unit Criteria - Gary Holton

3:30	IX	Members' Comments/Questions			  5 Min.

3:35	X	Adjournment

ATTACHMENT 115/1
UAF Faculty Senate #115
April 7, 2003
SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE

RESOLUTION:
==========

BE IT RESOLVED, That the UAF Faculty Senate ratifies the election of President-Elect on the basis of the following ballot.

					BALLOT
				PRESIDENT-ELECT

Please vote for ONE individual to serve as the President-Elect of the UAF Faculty Senate for 2003-2004.

	___	Abel Bult-Ito, Assistant Professor
		Biology/Wildlife  

	___	_________________________

PERSONAL STATEMENT:

ABEL BULT-ITO:

Abel is an assistant professor in the Department of Biology and Wildlife with a joint appointment in the Institute of Arctic Biology (1999- present).  He came to UAF after a two-year period as a tenure-track assistant professor at Middlebury College in Vermont.  At UAF, he has taught a wide range of courses in Biology from large non-majors courses (100+ students) to majors and graduate courses.  Abel is very active in teaching, funded research, and service to the community and the university.  He is currently advising three Ph.D. students and one Master's student, and is very active in providing undergraduate research opportunities in his research laboratory.

Abel has served in many capacities for the UAF Faculty Senate.  He is currently a Faculty Senator, the Chair of the Faculty Development, Assessment, and Improvement Committee, Co-Chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee, member of the Administrative Committee, member of the Ad Hoc Committee on Unit Criteria, and Faculty Senate Budget Liaison.

Abel's primary interest in governance lies in a desire to provide UAF students with the best education possible, which is our primary mission.  This requires commitments at all levels of organization to produce an interactive environment that fosters collaboration towards a common mission of academic excellence.  These commitments include, but are not limited to, appropriate compensation for and fair and equitable evaluation of faculty, a strong curriculum, appropriate resources for students, appropriate resources for teaching and research, excellent staff, and a supportive administrative structure.

ATTACHMENT 115/2
UAF Faculty Senate #115
April 7, 2003
SUBMITTED BY SCREENING COMMITTEE FOR OSYA

RESOLUTION:
=========

WHEREAS, Ron Illingworth has served the UAF Faculty Senate in 
	numerous capacities, often in leadership roles, since 1988, and

WHEREAS, Ron Illingworth, in service to the Faculty Senate, has made 
	truly outstanding contributions to improving the academic quality 
	of the university, and 

WHEREAS, Ron Illingworth has worked tirelessly for ALL UAF students, 
	both urban and rural, through his Faculty Senate representation, 
	and

WHEREAS, Ron Illingworth has helped to make the UAF Faculty Senate a 
	critical element in the retention of students throughout UAF, and

WHEREAS, Ron Illingworth has made major contributions to students' 
	welfare, to faculty's ability to carry out their duties and 
	responsibilities, and to the betterment of UAF as an institution 
	of higher education,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the UAF Faculty Senate recognize 
	Ron Illingworth as Outstanding Senator of the Year for Academic 
	Year 2002-2003.

ATTACHMENT 115/3
UAF Faculty Senate #115
April 7, 2003
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT, AND IMPROVEMENT 

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate, upon recommendation of the Faculty Development Assessment, and Improvement Committee, moves to approve the following Faculty Mentoring Program Policy:

			FACULTY MENTORING PROGRAM POLICY: 

	The Provost, in consultation with the Director of the Office of 
	Faculty Development, and the Faculty Development Assessment, 
	and Improvement Committee, will establish and implement a 
	comprehensive and effective Faculty Mentoring Program for 
	new/untenured faculty members no later than by the fall 2003 
	semester.

	EFFECTIVE:   	Immediately

	RATIONALE:   	This Faculty Mentoring Program Policy will 
		provide a framework for effective mentoring of 
		new/untenured tenure-track faculty members.  Currently, 
		the mentoring of new/untenured faculty members is 
		variable, from non-existent to effective.  Too many 
		new/untenured faculty members appear to receive 
		inadequate mentoring, because guidelines and 
		expectations for mentoring are not well developed.  
		This policy remedies this situation.

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

GUIDELINES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FACULTY MENTORING PROGRAM POLICY: 

These guidelines are to be evaluated periodically for effectiveness by the Provost, the Director of the Office of Faculty Development, and the Faculty Development Assessment, and Improvement Committee, and adjusted whenever necessary:

1.	New/untenured faculty members will be assigned (a) mentor(s) 
	by their dean/director during their first semester or as soon 
	as possible thereafter.
2.	The Office of Faculty Development hosts a luncheon or other 
	type of gathering for new/untenured faculty and their assigned 
	mentors each fall semester.  Deans/directors are to strongly 
	encourage attendance at this meeting.  Guidelines and 
	expectations for mentoring are discussed then.  A Handbook on 
	Mentoring is given to each new/untenured faculty member.
3.	In addition to the fall semester activities, deans/directors identify 
	senior faculty volunteer mentors who will be given Service 
	credit on their Workloads to meet at regular intervals with a 
	small group of new/untenured faculty in the spring semester.  
	Small groups of new/untenured faculty will be assigned to each 
	of these mentors depending on their discipline.  Faculty members 
	are encouraged to seek out their mentor(s) of choice.
4.	A template of the Annual Activities Report is added to the 
	Orientation Kit for new/untenured faculty members so they 
	know what to expect at the end of the year.
5.	The senior mentors have examples of Annual Activities Reports 
	and Fourth Year Reviews to show to their groups of 
	new/untenured faculty members.
6.	Both mentors and mentees report on their meetings in their 
	Annual Activities Report.  A section is added to the online Annual 
	Activities Report template for this information.  Also a section 
	be included in the Narrative about mentoring meetings.
7.	A training workshop is offered in fall for all mentors.
8.	The individual and/or group mentor(s) assist(s) the 
	new/untenured faculty members with preparation of the Annual 
	Activities Report up to the fourth year review.
9.	At the dean/director level, a list of new/untenured faculty 
	members and their mentors is maintained.
10.	Untenured faculty members are encouraged to maintain an 
	effective mentoring relationship through their tenure and 
	promotion review.

ATTACHMENT 115/4
UAF Faculty Senate #115
April 7, 2003
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY APPEALS & OVERSIGHT

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the administrator review guidelines (passed at Meeting #99, February 5, 2001) to establish a timeline and process for Group "B" administrators and to add Director of the Museum to the Group "B" list.

	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately

	RATIONALE:  	The current administrator evaluation process 
		defined two groups of administrators, Group "A" and 
		Group "B".  Group "A" administrators are being reviewed 
		by the established process.  However the Group "B" review 
		process was not well defined in the original motion.   Under 
		this motion, the process for Group "B" administrators is 
		less involved than for Group "A", and relies on the Faculty 
		Appeals and Oversight committee to run the process. 
		The Director of the Museum is at the same administrative 
		level as other Group "B" administrators but was not 
		included on the original list and should be included in the 
		review process.  

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

	PROCESS FOR EVALUATION OF GROUP "B" ADMINISTRATORS

Campus/Program Directors in Group "B" (as listed below) are to be reviewed annually by their immediate Supervisor.  On July 1st, Group "B" Directors shall submit a report/evaluation form to their Supervisor on the previous year's activities/accomplishments and include goals for the upcoming year.  The performance of the Director under review shall be ranked 'Satisfactory' or 'Unsatisfactory'.

On a 4-year cycle the evaluation shall be more extensive.  By October 15 the Campus/Program Director being reviewed will submit a vita, position description, brief self-evaluation and past annual evaluations to the Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee (FAOC), who will conduct the review.  The FAOC may form a subcommittee or subcommittees of 3 or more faculty from FAOC to conduct the review and report back to the committee as a whole.  If appropriate, a staff member from the Campus/Program Director's unit may be added to the subcommittee.

The FAOC shall set procedures for soliciting input from all relevant constituencies on- and off- campus including faculty, staff and students based on the Director's performance during the previous three years.  This will be accomplished through a standard questionnaire completed anonymously and returned to the Ad Hoc Director Review Committee chair and through interviews with a select sample of faculty, staff, students and relevant others, if appropriate, and may include an interview with the administrator being reviewed.

The FAOC will prepare an evaluative summary, and submit its report to the Director's Supervisor by March 1. 

At a date to be determined by the Supervisor of the Director under review, the Supervisor shall meet in joint conference with the Faculty Appeals & Oversight Committee to share his/her preliminary evaluation of the Director under review.  The Supervisor will then complete the review process.

Supervisory Administrators may add additional administrators to this review list (for review in the 2007-2008 cycle), with approval from the Faculty Senate.

Review Cycle:  Every four years beginning with:

2003-2004
		Director, Geophysical Institute
		Director, Interior-Aleutian Campus
		Director, Institute for Northern Engineering
		Director, Cooperative Extension Service
		Director, University of Alaska Museum

2004-2005
		Director, Institute of Arctic Biology
		Director, Bristol Bay Campus
		Director, Tanana Valley Campus
		Director of Fisheries Division, Juneau
		Director, International Arctic Research Center

2005-2006
		Director, Institute of Marine Science
		Director, Chukchi Campus
		Director of Library
		Director, Northwest Campus
		Program Chairman, Marine Advisory Program

2007-2008
		Director, Kuskokwim Campus
		Director, Fishery Industrial Technology Center, Kodiak
Director, Arctic Region Supercomputer Center

ATTACHMENT 115/5
UAF Faculty Senate #115
April 7, 2003
SUBMITTED BY AD HOC COMMITTEE ON UNIT CRITERIA

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve the Unit Criteria for the School of Management.  

	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately
				Upon Chancellor Approval

	RATIONALE: 	The School of Management (SOM) has 
		developed Unit Criteria which set very specific standards 
		for promotion and tenure.  The proposed criteria were 
		submitted by the SOM Dean with approval of a majority 
		of SOM faculty. The Unit Criteria proposal incorporates 
		minor changes in format and wording requested by the
		committee.  The resulting criteria have been found to be
		consistent with UAF guidelines.

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

UAF REGULATIONS FOR THE EVALUATION OF FACULTY:
INITIAL APPOINTMENT, PERIODIC REVIEW, RE-APPOINTMENT,
PROMOTION, AND TENURE
AND
SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT 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 THE FACULTY IN THE SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT.  ITEMS IN BOLDFACE ITALICS ARE THOSE SPECIFICALLY ADDED OR EMPHASIZED BECAUSE OF THEIR RELEVANCE TO THE SCHOOL’S FACULTY, AND BECAUSE THEY ARE ADDITIONS TO AND CLARIFICATION OF 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 (BOR) 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 Appointment and Evaluation 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 of schools and colleges, and directors when appropriate, in conjunction with the faculty in a unit, shall observe 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.

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.
EVALUATION OF FACULTY FOR TENURE/PROMOTION

A.   General Criteria  
Criteria as outlined in "UAF Faculty Appointment and Evaluation Policies," Chapter IV, AND SOM 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 
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;

b.	express positive regard for students, develop good rapport with students, show interest/enthusiasm for the subject;

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

H.	DISSEMINATE NEW IDEAS TO THE STUDENTS RESULTING FROM RESEARCH AND OTHER MANAGEMENT   ACTIVITIES, SUCH AS CONSULTING AND SERVICE ON REVIEW PANELS;

I.  	INVOLVE STUDENTS, UNDERGRADUATES AS WELL AS GRADUATES, IN QUALITY RESEARCH ACTIVITIES.

J.	 ENGAGE IN ADVISING AND MENTORING STUDENTS.

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,

b.	narrative self-evaluation, WHICH PROVIDES A CLEAR STATEMENT OF TEACHING OBJECTIVES AND A SELF ASSESSMENT OF HOW THOSE OBJECTIVES ARE MET

	and at least TWO of:

c. peer/department chair evaluation of course materials.

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

e.  A CLASS PRE TEST AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SEMESTER OF NO MORE THAN TEN QUESTIONS FOLLOWED BY A POST TEST OF SIMILAR FORMAT AT THE END OF THE SEMESTER TO ASSESS STUDENT LEARNING.

f.	EXAMPLES OF STUDENT PROGRESS, REPRESENTED BY IMPROVEMENTS IN EARLY AND LATE SEMESTER PROJECTS, OR OTHER MECHANISMS THAT CAN DOCUMENT IMPROVEMENT.

g.	AN INVENTORY OF SKILLS LEARNED SELECTED FROM INDIVIDUAL STUDENTS’ WORK.

h.   DOCUMENTATION OF SCORES FROM ANY NATIONALLY NORMED COURSE-SPECIFIC EXAM. 

PERFORMANCE IN THE ABOVE AREAS WILL BE EVALUATED IN THE FOLLOWING TABLE (PLEASE CHECK ONE RANKING IN EACH ROW):

	UNSATISFACTORY					
CATEGORY	MARKEDLY DEFICIENT	BELOW THRESHOLD	SATISFACTORY	GOOD	VERY GOOD	EXCELLENT	
SYSTEMATIC STUDENT RATINGS 							
NARRATIVE SELF-EVALUATION 							
OTHER TEACHING ITEMS C-H 							

EVALUATORS MAY ASO CONSIDER OTHER FACTORS, INCLUDING: 

GRADE DISTRIBUTION 
TOTAL PREPARATIONS IN AN ACADEMIC YEAR
NEW PREPARATIONS 
GRADUATE COURSES
LARGE UNDERGRADUATE COURSES

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 to 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.

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 work at galleries, selection for these exhibitions being based on rigorous review and approval by juries, recognized artists, or critics.

e.	Performances 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.

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.

SPECIFIC SOM CRITERIA FOR RESEARCH PERFORMANCE:

A. 	RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY – FOR PROMOTION TO ASSOCIATE OR FULL PROFESSOR, IT MAY BE SUFFICIENT FOR A FACULTY MEMBER TO DEMONSTRATE RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY SINCE THE TIME OF LAST PROMOTION OF AT LEAST SIX JOURNAL ARTICLES THAT ARE EITHER SINGLE OR DOUBLE BLIND REFEREED, OR PUBLISHED IN AN EDITORIALLY REVIEWED JOURNAL OF RECOGNIZED HIGH QUALITY. ALTERNATELY, A FACULTY MEMBER MAY PUBLISH FIVE SUCH JOURNAL ARTICLES AND TWO PAPERS PUBLISHED IN LESSER FORMAT, SUCH AS PAPERS AND PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, A FACULTY MEMBER MAY NOT RECEIVE CREDIT MORE THAN ONCE FOR A PAPER THAT IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME CONTENT REGARDLESS OF INTEGRITY. 

ALL FACULTY MEMBERS MUST DEMONSTRATE AN INDEPENDENT AND COHERENT RESEARCH AGENDA.  EVIDENCE OF THIS CAN INCLUDE SOLE AUTHORED PAPERS OR A CONVINCING RECORD OF INITIATION OF INDEPENDENT RESEARCH.  TO DEMONSTRATE A CONSISTENT FLOW OF RESEARCH, A FACULTY MEMBER WHO HAS COMPLETED WORK BEFORE ARRIVING AT THIS UNIVERSITY CAN COUNT NO MORE THAN THREE PAPERS TOWARD PROMOTION IF THOSE PAPERS WERE PUBLISHED WITHIN SIX YEARS OF THE DATE THE CANDIDATE PETITIONS FOR PROMOTION. 

BASED ON THE GUIDELINES AND ILLUSTRATIONS ABOVE, IT WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PEER REVIEW AND TENURE AND PROMOTION COMMITTEES TO MAKE FINAL JUDGMENTS OF SUFFICIENCY.  THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA CAN BE USED TO DEMONSTRATE FLOW AND ACTIVE SCHOLARLY ENGAGEMENT:

1. ANNUAL AVERAGE NUMBER OF APPROPRIATELY REVIEWED JOURNAL ARTICLES QUANTITY OVER THE REVIEW PERIOD. THE CRITERIA IS AS FOLLOWS (PLEASE CHECK ONE):

	PRODUCED A RESEARCH AGENDA AND WORKED ON ONE ARTICLE	PRODUCED A RESEARCH AGENDA AND SUBMITTED ONE ARTICLE TO A LESSER FORUM	PRODUCED A RESEARCH AGENDA, SUBMITTED ONE ARTICLE TO A GOOD FORUM AND STARTED WORK ON A NEW ARTICLE	PRODUCED A RESEARCH AGENDA, 1 ARTICLE ACCEPTED TO A LESSER FORUM OR PROCEEDINGS	PRODUCED A RESEARCH AGENDA, 2 ARTICLES ACCEPTED TO A LESSER FORUM 
OR 1 ARTICLE ACCEPTED TO A GOOD FORUM	
PUBLICATIONS 						

2. ANNUAL AVERAGE NUMBER OF WORK-PRODUCTS (OTHER NON-PEER-REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS) OVER THE REVIEW PERIOD. THE CRITERIA IS AS FOLLOWS (PLEASE CHECK ONE):

	WORKED ON ONE PRODUCT	SUBMITTED ONE PRODUCT	SUBMITTED ONE PRODUCT AND STARTED WORK ON A NEW PRODUCT	1 PRODUCT ACCEPTED	2 PRODUCTS ACCEPTED
OR 1 PRODUCT ACCEPTED AND 1 PRODUCT SUBMITTED AND 1 NEW PRODUCT STARTED	
WORK-PRODUCT						

3. ANNUAL AVERAGE NUMBER OF BOOKS. THE CRITERIA IS AS FOLLOWS (PLEASE CHECK ONE):

	WORKED ON A PART OF ONE BOOK	WORKED ON A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF ONE BOOK	SUBMITTED A  BOOK FOR CONSIDERATION FOR PUBLICATION	BOOK ACCEPTED WHERE AUTHOR WROTE A PART OF THE BOOK	BOOK ACCEPTED WHERE AUTHOR WROTE A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE BOOK	
BOOK

4. PEER REVIEW OF DISCIPLINE KNOWLEDGE - THE DEAN OR HIS DESIGNEE WILL APPOINT EXTERNAL REVIEWERS IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT. THE CRITERIA FOR ANNUAL AVERAGE DISCIPLINE RESEARCH IS AS FOLLOWS (PLEASE CHECK ONE):

	SUPERVISED A GRADUATE STUDENT	PREPARED A COMPREHENSIVE RESEARCH PLAN	ATTENDED ONE  CONFERENCE OR KEPT CURRENT IN RELEVANT JOURNALS 	ATTENDED ONE CONFERENCE, PLUS KEPT CURRENT IN RELEVANT JOURNALS 	ATTENDED CONFERENCE, KEPT CURRENT IN RELEVANT JOURNALS, AND PARTICIPATED IN A STUDY	
DISCIPLINE

OVERALL PERFORMANCE IN THE ABOVE AREAS WILL BE EVALUATED IN THE FOLLOWING TABLE (PLEASE CHECK ONE):

	UNSATISFACTORY					
CATEGORY	MARKEDLY DEFICIENT	BELOW THRESHOLD	SATISFACTORY	GOOD	VERY GOOD	EXCELLENT	
BODY OF RESEARCH							

EVALUATORS MAY ASO CONSIDER OTHER FACTORS, INCLUDING: 

SOLE AUTHORSHIP
CITATIONS
INITIATION OF NEW RESEARCH AGENDAS

D.	Criteria for Public and University Service
Public service is intrinsic to the land grant/sea grant/space grant tradition, and is a 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 assumes 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 of 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.	Prizes and awards for excellence in public service.

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

h.	Training and facilitating.

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

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 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.

i.	Mentoring.

j.	Prizes and awards for excellence in university service.

K.	 PARTICIPATION IN STUDENT RECRUITING.

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 appropriate 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.

SPECIFIC SOM CRITERIA FOR SERVICE:

1. GOVERNANCE SERVICE WITHIN THE SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT (AN AVERAGE OF NO LESS THAN 100 HOURS DURING EACH ACADEMIC YEAR SHALL BE EXHIBITED IN THIS CATEGORY). THE CRITERIA IS AS FOLLOWS (PLEASE CHECK ONE):

	CONSISTENTLY ATTENDED SCHOOL MEETINGS AND COMMENCEMENTS	PARTICIPATED ON ONE OF THE CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEES	PROVIDED SUBSTANTIAL LEADERSHIP ON ONE OF THE COMMITTEES	CHAIRED A COMMITTEE OR WAS PRIMARY SPONSOR FOR STUDENT GROUP	CHAIRED A DEPARTMENT OR PROGRAM AND ACTIVELY PARTICIPATED ON A COMMITTEE	
SOM SERVICE						

2. UNIVERSITY- AND SYSTEM-WIDE SERVICE:- THIS IS SERVICE FOR THE UNIVERSITY. THE CRITERIA IS AS FOLLOWS FOR ANY (PLEASE CHECK ONE):

	WENT TO A UNIVERSITY WIDE MEETING	MEMBER OF  MINOR UNIVERSITY WIDE COMMITTEES	MEMBER OF  MAJOR UNIVERSITY WIDE COMMITTEES	CHAIRED A MINOR COMMITTEE 	UNION DUTIES OR SENATE REPRESENTATIVE OR CHAIRED A MAJOR COMMITTEE	
UNIVERSITY
SERVICE						

3. PROFESSIONAL OR PUBLIC SERVICE. THIS IS SERVICE TO ORGANIZATIONS IN A PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY. THE CRITERIA IS AS FOLLOWS (PLEASE CHECK ONE):

	ATTENDED A PROFESSIONAL MEETING	PARTICIPATED IN A PROFESSIONAL COMMITTEE	CHAIRED  A PROFESSIONAL COMMITTEE	PARTICIPATED IN EXTENDED SERVICE FOR THE PROFESSION OR THE STATE OF ALASKA	INITIATED AND COORDINATED A MAJOR COMMITTEE	
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE						

PERFORMANCE IN THE ABOVE AREAS WILL BE TABULATED IN THE FOLLOWING TABLE:

	UNSATISFACTORY					
CATEGORY	MARKEDLY DEFICIENT	BELOW TRESHOLD	SATISFACTORY	GOOD	VERY GOOD	EXCELLENT	
SOM SERVICE							
UNIVERSITY AND/OR PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 							

ATTACHMENT 115/6
UAF Faculty Senate #115
April 7, 2003
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY AFFAIRS

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate, upon recommendation of the Faculty Affairs Committee, moves to approve the following Spouse/Partner Hiring Policy.

	EFFECTIVE:   	Immediately

	RATIONALE:   	Currently, UAF does not have a policy by which 
		all tenure-track faculty candidates and their academic 
		spouse/partner are treated equally across different units.  
		This situation results in ad hoc decisions about hiring of a 
		spouse/partner that vary substantially among units and 
		can be perceived as unfair to the candidate, the 
		spouse/partner, the faculty member seeking a retention 
		offer, or the receiving unit.  This Spouse/Partner Hiring 
		Policy will provide guidelines for the hiring of spouses or 
		partners of new tenure-track faculty members or those 
		who seek retention offers.  The policy presents clear 
		guidelines for all parties involved and treats all candidates 
		and his/her spouse/partner equally.  To be able to hire and 
		retain the best faculty UAF also needs to recognize the 
		importance of accommodating dual-career couples.

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

			SPOUSE/PARTNER HIRING POLICY 

Purpose: 

The University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) Spouse/Partner Hiring Program is established because UAF recognizes the importance of accommodating dual-career academic couples. Increasingly, such accommodation is necessary in order for academic units to be successful in their recruitment and retention of the most talented tenure-track faculty. Because dual-career partnerships typically involve employment needs and/or opportunities across units, a UAF-wide policy is required. The following spouse/partner hiring guidelines characterize the role of UAF and the procedures it will follow in support of a domestic partner accompanying a successful candidate for a tenure-track faculty position or a faculty member seeking a retention offer.  The Office of the Provost will assist units by providing matching funds in support of such appointments.  Note: This spouse/partner hiring policy should be provided to every faculty search committee during their first meeting and should be on file in the unit.

Definitions:
1.	Candidate refers to the member of a couple being recruited or considered for retention in a tenure-track faculty position.
2.	Spouse/partner refers to an accompanying spouse/partner whose employment in an academic position at the university is a substantial factor in the candidate's acceptance of a UAF offer of employment.
3.	Dean/Director refers to the hiring authority of a department, research institute, or academic unit.
4.	Unit Chair refers to the unit chair who represents the faculty of this department or academic unit.
5.	Unit refers to the department, research institute, or academic unit extending an offer to the candidate.
6.	Receiving unit refers to the department, research institute, or academic unit extending an offer to the spouse/partner.

Spouse/Partner Hiring Program: 
The Spouse/partner Hiring Program provides funds from the Office of the Provost on a competitive basis to assist units in the appointment of accompanying academic spouses.  The terms of the program are as follows:

1.	The accompanying spouse/partner must become a candidate for a faculty position and be appointed through the hiring process outlined below;
2.	The unit which appoints the recruited faculty appointee provides a minimum of one-third (minimum 33 1/3 %) of the salary and associated benefits of the accompanying academic spouse/partner;
3.	The receiving unit which appoints the accompanying academic spouse/partner provides a minimum of one-third (minimum 33 1/3 %) of the salary and associated benefits of the accompanying spouse/partner; and,
4.	The Office of the Provost provides up to one-third (maximum 33 1/3 %) of the salary and associated benefits needed for hiring the accompanying spouse/partner.

Requests for funds can be made at any time and will be considered on a competitive basis as long as funds are available to support the program.  No funds will be provided to a unit until the Office of the Provost and all participating units have signed a memorandum of understanding.  Funding goes to the receiving unit hiring the spouse/partner for the percent of salary and number of years requested (ordinarily three), after which time the salary responsibility is fully that of the receiving unit that hired the spouse/partner.  Funds, provided by the Office of the Provost and the unit that appoints the candidate, that support the appointment of the accompanying spouse/partner will revert to the Office of the Provost and the unit, respectively, when the appointment of the accompanying spouse/partner ends.

While UAF will facilitate placement of an accompanying spouse/partner, it will in no way curtail the unit’s prerogative (as exercised through the Unit Chair and Dean/Director) to make decisions on hiring.  If an accompanying spouse/partner does not have the credentials or sufficient promise to be compatible in the unit in which a position is sought, then no employment will be pursued.  Any offer of employment within any unit at UAF will be contingent on the candidate's qualifications and on the availability of resources.

Search Committee Responsibilities:
Every candidate for an on-campus interview for a tenure-track faculty position in one of UAF’s units will be informed that she or he should feel free to discuss spouse/partner needs, without risk of potential bias, at the time an invitation for the interview is extended.  (Search committees, following established equal opportunity policy, will not consider spouse/partner needs in arriving at hiring decisions.)

Suggested Guidelines for Negotiating a Spouse/Partner Hire:
When a candidate indicates that a spouse/partner hire would be a substantial factor in his or her decision to accept an offer or remain at UAF, the following sequence of events is suggested.

1.	The Dean/Director contacts the spouse/partner to gather information about the spouse/partner's objectives and qualifications.  Curriculum vitae or résumé and other relevant information are obtained as soon as possible, including a signed release from the spouse/partner permitting UAF to copy and distribute these documents as necessary.  The Dean/Director notifies the Provost and Unit Chair of the possible spouse/partner hire at this point.

2.	The Dean/Director and Unit Chair consult with the Provost regarding the importance of facilitating a spouse/partner hire, the possibilities for funding a position, possible UAF units to contact, and what further information may be required from the candidate and spouse/partner. 

3.	After approval by the Provost, the Office of the Provost, in consultation with the Dean/Director and Unit Chair, takes steps to gather information about possible available positions.  The initial steps in the search or identification process for a position for the spouse/partner are to determine whether the possibility of a "fit" within a receiving unit exists and whether there is a basis to proceed to the interview stage.

4.	Deans/Directors and Unit Chairs of possible receiving units, who express interest in the spouse/partner and who have or are willing to create an opportunity within their unit to employ the spouse/partner, should consult with the Provost and the Dean/Director and Unit Chair who extended the original offer to the candidate regarding the possibilities for funding a position and the spouse/partner’s qualifications.  If the initial exploration is clearly negative, the process ends at this point.  If the spouse/partner hire appears to have the potential for success within the receiving unit and if funding is available the process continues to the formal interview process.

5.	The receiving unit generally uses the regular, formal interview process to determine if the spouse/partner is a desirable hire.  If a campus visit by the spouse/partner is necessary, the costs of such a visit may be partially or fully absorbed by the unit recruiting the candidate or seeking to retain a tenure-track faculty member.

6.	Procedures must include review by an appropriate unit faculty search committee, the Unit Chair, and Dean/Director.  When the interests of the spouse/partner represents a new direction for the unit, the benefits of the addition of the spouse/partner to the unit may be weighed along with his or her qualifications and accomplishments and potential contributions to the unit.  Units might consider the spouse/partner hire’s effect on, among other things, future directions of the unit, potential as a teacher or scholar, potential contribution to the workload of the unit and interdisciplinary connections to other units.

	Other Criteria for making a decision might include whether: 
a)	The spouse/partner under consideration has sufficiently high achievements and/or potential that he or she would have been a member of a "short list" for a position in the unit if a position in the area had been advertised.
b)	The spouse/partner has sufficiently high achievements and/or potential that the receiving unit would desire to retain the individual even if the marriage or partnership dissolves or if the candidate leaves UAF.

7.	If the review process results in an overall negative recommendation by the receiving unit, the process ends at this point.  If the receiving unit supports the spouse/partner hire, negotiations proceed to the formal agreement stage, which results in a signed memorandum of understanding.

8.	The Provost, Dean/Director, and Unit Chair of both units determine the elements of the memorandum of understanding, including terms such as salary, rank, space and startup needs if appropriate, promotion and tenure or continuing status if appropriate, or other status of the spouse/partner.  

	Issues that may need to be addressed and that need to be agreed upon at the time of hire include the following:

Funding:  How is the original funding of the position supported? What does each unit contribute?  Is funding permanent, temporary or contingent?  In general, requests to the Provost should not exceed one-third of the salary of the spouse/partner hire for a period of up to three years.  The intent is that the receiving unit will eventually assume responsibility for the longer-term funding of the spouse/partner hire.

Extent of commitments:  Do the hiring arrangements change over time (e.g., does one unit or the Office of the Provost phase out support?)?  Are there possible term or status limits on any shared funding?  If the candidate leaves the University or their job terminates, how long does the commitment to the spouse/partner continue?  If the spouse/partner leaves UAF or moves to another UAF unit, does the line and funding provided by the other sources stay in the spouse/partner's original unit?  Under what conditions is a term appointment renewed?  What would happen if the spouse/partner shifts status (e.g., from research associate to tenure-track assistant professor)?  What costs (i.e., start-up, space renovation, moving, laboratory facilities, campus visits, etc.) will be supported and by whom?  Financial support available for a candidate and spouse/partner may vary substantially across units.

9.	The intent to hire the spouse/partner must be included in the candidate's offer letter or retention agreement.  Approval of the spouse/partner hire must be obtained from the Provost before this condition may be added to the candidate's offer letter or retention agreement.  In addition to the terms applicable to the candidate's hire or retention, the offer letter or retention agreement contains the signatures of all parties involved in the hire of both the candidate and the spouse/partner.

10.	When an offer is accepted by a candidate, the following is required:
a)	Documentation for a non-competitive hire of a spouse/ partner contains a copy of the candidate's offer letter or retention agreement specifying the hire of the spouse/partner. 
b)	An offer letter to the spouse/partner written by the receiving unit contains any necessary conditions, time, or other limitations.  The letter states that the offer is contingent upon the candidate's acceptance of an offer of employment with UAF.  If there are any additional conditions that limit the extent of the offer to the spouse/partner or the conditions of such an offer, those are included in this initial offer letter.

11.	The position of the spouse/partner will remain funded until the stated term limitation of the offer or until such funding is no longer available if funding is from non-state sources.  This offer letter may limit the term for which funding for the position is provided.  This limitation does not preclude the unit from later extending the term of the funding and continuing the appointment.

12.	During negotiations and after a spouse/partner joins the receiving unit, the spouse/partner will be treated in the same way as any other employee of the same rank and status within the receiving unit.  Thus, on matters such as merit review, retention, promotion and tenure or continuing status reviews, working conditions or workload assignment, the spouse/partner will be evaluated and treated in the same manner as all other similarly ranked individuals within the receiving unit.

Note:  This UAF spouse/partner hiring policy is an adaptation of spouse/partner hiring policies at North Carolina State University, The University of Arizona – Tucson, and Arizona State University.

ATTACHMENT 115/7
UAF Faculty Senate #115
April 7, 2003
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY AFFAIRS

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate, upon recommendation of the Faculty Affairs Committee and the Ad Hoc Committee on Classified Research, moves to approve a UAF Policy on Classified and Proprietary Research as follows.  

	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately

	RATIONALE: 	BOR Policy P10.07.02 specifies that the 
		university may engage in classified research, subject to 
		approval of the Chancellor, but no procedures or guidelines 
		are in place for faculty review and advice on such 
		contracts.  The suggested guidelines provide for oversight 
		and faculty review of classified and proprietary research 
		contracts while honoring ongoing agreements with 
		university constituents.

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

UAF Policy Concerning Classified and Proprietary Research

This statement of policy and procedures addresses the issues of whether and, if so, under what conditions, classified and proprietary research should be conducted at the University.  The goal of this policy is to establish a rigorous procedure guaranteeing that any classified or proprietary research be conducted in a responsible and ethical manner consistent with the mission of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.

The conduct of classified research restricts participation of students and limits faculty who work on such research.  The results of classified research may not be contained in theses nor used for faculty review or advancement.  The University seeks a policy, in principle, of complete disclosure of research activities and sources of funds.
 
At times, freedom of discourse and dissemination might conflict with the greater, immediate needs of society.  Research funded by industrial organizations may involve patent applications that require a short delay of publication of a thesis resulting from that research.   Faculty members may also wish to act as consultants on classified research projects not involving the use of university facilities.

For reasons such as the above, proposals to conduct classified and proprietary research will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis by the University campus chancellor and the UAF Faculty Research Oversight Committee, with disclosure to the University Faculty Senate, following the guidelines set forth below.

Definitions

Classified Research:  Research that has a security classification established by a federal agency.

Various agencies of the federal government may designate some federally sponsored research project, either all or a portion of a particular project, as Top Secret, Secret, or Confidential.  Under the terms of this policy, research projects so designated are considered classified.

Proprietary Research:  Industrially sponsored proprietary research for which the sponsor requires a delay in publication of the results after submission of the final report.

GUIDELINES ON NEGOTIATING CLASSIFIED AND PROPRIETARY RESEARCH CONTRACTS OR ACTIVITIES 

1.	The University will under no circumstances enter into any agreement or contract for which the direct primary purpose of the research or application of the results is the destruction of human life or harm to humans.  The University will undertake only those contracts and activities that do not compromise the safety and/or well-being of Alaskans and that honor existing agreements with the diverse peoples of Alaska.

2.	The University will make every reasonable effort to keep classified information and activities separate from the normal academic functions of the University.

3.	No thesis that may not be published because it contains federally classified or proprietary information will be accepted toward fulfillment of the requirements for an advanced degree.

4.	For proprietary research, the University will not enter into or renew any contract or accept any grant that prohibits the open publication or dissemination of research results within a reasonable period, typically (and expected to be) no more than 60 days or a period negotiated at the time of the contract initiation.

5.	No University courses given for credit shall be classified in any part.

6.	The University will not accept any contract that cannot be publicly acknowledged. The University will maintain an open record of all classified and proprietary research contracts.

7.	The University will permit the participation of faculty members in classified research of their choice by means of normal consulting arrangements or leaves of absence without pay. Faculty shall not use classified research work in consideration for tenure, promotion, or post-tenure review.

8.	Any unique security costs associated with classified or proprietary research will be borne by the unit within which the contract is sponsored.

9.	The University will supply a Facilities Security Officer to ensure the compliance of all classified agreements with the law.

10.	A Faculty Research Oversight Committee, elected from each unit (college, school and institute) for staggered 2 year terms, and confirmed by the Faculty Senate, shall review all classified and proprietary proposals, grants and contracts to advise the chancellor of their compliance or lack thereof with university policy. The committee shall consist of  members elected from the pool of faculty who are qualified to be members of the senate. Committee membership must broadly represent the university community with no more than 1 member being from the same unit. 

11.	The committee will offer changes to this policy as needed through periodic reviews occurring no less than once every 5 years.

Basic Principles

The UAF mission statement proclaims that the University of Alaska Fairbanks is “the nation’s northernmost Land, Sea and Space Grant university and international research center, [which] advances and disseminates knowledge through creative teaching, research and public service with an emphasis on Alaska, the North and their diverse peoples” (BOR Policy 10.01.03). Through exercising the fulfillment of that mission, the University has enabled relationships with government and industry presenting intellectual and professional opportunities to faculty and students that they would not otherwise have. Concomitant with the open and full pursuit of that mission comes our understanding that the pursuit of knowledge must be tempered by ethical obligations to society; hence our concern with an ethical approach to permitting classified and proprietary research on campus.

The purpose of academic research in the University is the education of students, at all levels, and the generation of new knowledge.  It is important that the University undertake research of high quality and originality.  Ongoing research strengthens the University in a variety of ways:

*	through the stimulation of creative and intellectual 
	investigation by faculty and students,
*	through the discovery and dissemination of new knowledge 
	that benefits society,
*	through participation in a learning process that is unique 
	to research and creative investigation,
*	through transmission of new knowledge to students in 
	the classroom.

Obligation

The university guarantees each member of the academic community the freedom to inquire and affirms the right of each member to access to all available information in his or her field.  A basic function of the University is to carry out research in an open and unrestricted manner with complete freedom to publish or otherwise disseminate the results of its search for knowledge.  The requirements of secrecy and restrictions on freedom to publish, which are inherent in security classification or the restrictions on dissemination which derive from proprietary rights of privately sponsored research, are in direct opposition to this function.

Exercising this function does not, however, prohibit self-imposed restrictions based on the professional ethics of a particular discipline. It also does not prohibit the existence of classified information to reside on campus such as sometimes arises, for instance, in connection with consulting work.  This policy is directed towards maintaining a separation between classified information and the teaching and research functions of the University.

The review process for classified and proprietary research proposals shall be as follows:

	*  The Faculty Oversight Committee shall use a checklist to determine if a project requires formal review.
	*  The Faculty Oversight Committee shall review classified or proprietary proposals and offer recommendations to the chancellor in an expedited fashion.
	*  The Faculty Oversight Committee will publish a report on the status of classified and proprietary contracts, grants and proposals to the UAF Faculty Senate on an annual basis.
	*  The Faculty Oversight Committee should include faculty representation (see above), a person from the Office of Sponsored Research, the Facilities Safety Officer, and a designee of the Chancellor.

ATTACHMENT 115/8
UAF Faculty Senate #115
April 7, 2003
SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS

Curricular Affairs Committee Meeting Report

The Curricular Affairs committee held audioconferenced meetings on 12 March and 26 March 2003 from 1015 am to 1145 am.  Members present included Jim Gladden, Mike Hannigan, Gary Holton, Wanda Martin, Rainer Newberry, Carol Barnhardt, Eduard Zilberkant, Gayle Gregory, Ron Slominski, and Ron Illingworth.  Guests included Sharon Tavernier from the Academic Advising Center.

The committee discussed the following items.

1.	Mandatory Placement.  A motion was forwarded from the Developmental Studies Committee that would establish a mandatory placement policy for UAF students based on a current assessment of students' levels of preparation in math, written English, and reading.  This motion comes with a request for co-sponsorship and is one of the recommendations resulting from the external evaluation of the developmental program at UAF.  Three of the professional organizations that focus on underprepared students (NADE, AMETYC, and CRLA) all include as policy statements their support for mandatory assessment and mandatory placement.  

Discussion from previous meetings continued on this topic.  A review of policies from a range of schools (Technical Colleges, Junior Colleges, Community Colleges, 4-year colleges, and senior Universities) demonstrated how other schools had dealt with this issue.

A resolution of support was unanimously approved by the committee:  

"In order to increase the opportunity for students to be successful in their academic work at UAF while maintaining high academic standards, the Curricular Affairs Committee supports the Developmental Studies Committee initiative to establish a mandatory placement policy.

Mandatory placement and assessment should also be coupled with the establishment of realistic course prerequisites, routine periodic review of existing course prerequisites, and continued enforcement of those course prerequisites."

However, the Curricular Affairs Committee would like the proposed motion from the Developmental Studies Committee to be both stronger and more specific.  The Chair of the CA committee was empowered to work with the Developmental Studies Committee to affect this goal.

Comments such as the following from other colleges might be appropriate to add:

"Students may not be enrolled in a regular college-level course that requires that competency as a prerequisite until they have satisfactorily met the exit criteria of the appropriate developmental studies course(s)."

"You need to complete your developmental coursework within the first 30 credits . . ."

"Any student entering OU for the first time must be assessed.  Upon entering the University, advising personnel look at ACT/SAT scores, high school GPA and/or any transfer work from another college or university.  Then, based on certain criteria, students may be referred for additional assessments.  Assessment results sometimes indicate the need for developmental course(s) which must be successfully completed before pursuing college-level courses."

2.	Related to advising and assessment, Carol Barnhardt reported that the results of the Alaska High School Qualifying exam would be another tool that would help in the areas of assessment and placement.  These results which are provided in detail to the students can be provided by the student at the time of application for admission to UAF.  High School transcripts will only reflect pass or no pass information.  The committee voted unanimously to include these results or the results from similar exams from other states in the materials submitted upon application to UAF.  Carol Barnhardt and Gayle Gregory will work together with the Admissions Office to include the appropriate wording in both the catalog and in admissions materials provided by the Admissions Office.

3.	Freshman Grade Reports:  The committee answered a request from a task group from the Banner Student Team on how to proceed if no instructor turns in any grades for the Freshman Grade Report for a given student.  The CA committee requested that the task group establish the requirement that a letter to the student would be created indicating that no grades had been submitted by their instructors and that they should contact their instructors to ascertain their performance in the course.

The CA Committee expressed in the strongest terms possible, that all faculty should provide students with course performance assessments that will allow the student to know how they are doing in the course and that these assessments should be provided early and often.  We can find no reason why Freshman Grade Report information could not be provided by the 6th Friday following the first day of classes. 

4.	Contact Hours for Internships and Practica.  Discussion continued on the issue of contact hours for internships and practica.  There is currently only limited guidance on credits and contact hours for these student activities and the application varies from department to department.  This discussion illuminated a broader issue which is the lack of a clear understanding of how different colleges and departments interpret and apply the formulas which determine the number of lecture and laboratory hours that a class will meet each week of a semester.  Sheri Layral in the Governance Office has been recruited to assist in the development of a clearer statement of policy in this area.

5.	UAF Calendar.  The CA Committee reviewed and discussed two versions of the Academic Calendar proposed by the Registrars Office.  It was pointed out by a CSEM faculty member on the committee that there was a significant difference between the two proposals that would have a major effect on lab setups.  Subsequently, version two was recommended.

6.	Attendance Policy.  It appears that limited guidance is available to faculty and students regarding attendance policies at UAF.  Some brief information is available in the catalog but it is unclear whether this is sufficient at this time.  The committee reviewed some comments on this subject submitted by the Faculty Appeals and Oversight committee.  The CA committee believes that each faculty's course attendance policy should be a mandatory inclusion in the course syllabus.  This item will be continued for further discussion.

7.	Syllabus Guidelines.  Discussion began on what should be included in a syllabus.  It appears that there is little that provides guidance on what should be in a syllabus.  The committee agreed to develop a set of guidelines for the items that should be included in a syllabus.  This item will be continued to the next meetings.

8.	The Curricular Affairs Committee would like to consider establishing a policy such as the following from the University of Oklahoma regarding completion of English Composition requirements:
"English Composition is the cornerstone of the general education curriculum.  Because written communication is an integral part of every degree program at the University, all undergraduate students are required to enroll in 'Principles of English Composition'.  English 1113 must be completed within the first 24 hours, and English 1213 must be completed within the first 48 hours of college credit."  The CA committee will discuss the merits of this proposal with the Core Review Committee and with the English Department of CLA.

Respectfully submitted

Ronald D. Illingworth, Chair
Curricular Affairs Committee

ATTACHMENT 115/9
UAF Faculty Senate #115
April 7, 2003
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY DEVELOPMENT, ASSESSMENT, AND IMPROVEMENT

Minutes of Faculty Development, Assessment, and Improvement Committee Meeting
Tuesday, 25 March 2003 / 9am
Office of Faculty Development, 222 Bunnell
Minutes submitted by Abel Bult-Ito

Committee Members Present:  Gerald Berman, Abel Bult-Ito (Chair), Linda Curda, Lee Haugen, Paul McCarthy, Joy Morrison, E. Thomas Robinson, Roger Norris-Tull, Ann Wilson

Committee Members Absent:  Brian Barnes, George Charles, Channon Price, Shunpu Zhang

1. 	The report by the Sub-Committee on Student Evaluations was tabled until the 15 April meeting.

2. 	The Faculty Mentoring Program Motion was amended to clarify some issues.  The final version will be presented to the Administrative committee on Friday 28 March. 

3. 	Short reports by Joy Morrison and Abel Bult-Ito on the American Association for Higher Education (AAHE) meeting in Washington, D.C.  Abel reported briefly on workshops he attended on conflict resolution and program assessment and sessions on being a faculty senate president and educational issues.  Abel presented Joy with a set of handouts on program assessment to be added to the Office of Faculty Development resources.  Joy focused on workshops and sessions related to development of department chairs and steps we can take to improve training opportunities for chairs.  Joy also obtained some information on program assessment and ordered several books including a book on mentoring that she will use to develop the UAF mentoring guide.  Joy is also an officer in the AAHE women's caucus.  Pete Pinney also attended the AAHE meeting and Joy reported that he attended sessions on distance education and found out a lot about the MERLOT resources, which provide online resources for all teaching disciplines (Arts, Business, Education, Humanities, Mathematics, Science and Technology, Social Sciences).  The web site for these resources is www.merlot.org.

4. Other business.
	a)  The Sub-Committee on Faculty Development Travel Award Policy will prepare a report for the 15 April meeting.
	b)  All-day "Publish don't Perish" workshop on April 17 in 109 Butrovich by Tara Gray. All faculty are welcome, especially untenured faculty. Sign up with Joy Morrison.  Free.
	c)  The luncheon presentation on the Fulbright Scholarship program to faculty on Tuesday 11 March by Debra Egan of CIES in DC was a great success.  The Office of Faculty Development now has a lot of materials for anyone planning to apply for a Fulbright scholarship in the next couple of years.
	d)  Joy will obtain a TV and DVD/VCR for the Office of Faculty Development to be used for faculty development, workshops, and alike.  The office will also be equipped with bookshelves for storage of books, videos, the Chronicle of Higher Education, and other resources.

5. The next meeting will be held on Tuesday 15 April 2003 at 9am in the Office of Faculty Development, 222 Bunnell.  The tentative agenda for this meeting is:
	a) Report by the Sub-Committee on Student Evaluations (20 min).
	b) Report by the Sub-Committee on Faculty Development Travel Award Policy (20 min).
	c) Other business (20 min).

6. 	The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 am.