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

A G E N D A
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #116
Monday, May 5, 2003
1:00 p.m. - 4:15 p.m.
Wood Center Carol Brown Ballroom

1:00	I	Call to Order – Godwin Chukwu      		  5 Min.
		A.	Roll Call
		B.	Approval of Minutes to Meeting #115
		C.	Adoption of Agenda

1:05	II	Status of Chancellor's Office Actions 	  5 Min.
		A.	Motions Approved:  
			1.	Motion to approve a Faculty Mentoring 
				Program Policy.
			2.	Motion to amend the administrator review 
				guidelines to establish a timeline and 
				process for Group B administrators.  
		B.	Motions Pending:  none

1:10	III	A.	Remarks by Chancellor M. Lind   	10 Min.
		B.	Remarks by Provost P. Reichardt	10 Min.

1:30	IV	Governance Reports
	A.	President-elect's Comments - P. Pinney	  5 Min. 
	B.	President's Report - G. Chukwu     		  5 Min.
	C.	Staff Council - L. Ledlow 			  5 Min.
	D.	ASUAF -D. Miller / GSO - B. Andrews      	  5 Min.
	E.	Academic Liaison - E. Kopacz   		  5 Min.
	F.	Budget Liaison - A. Bult  			  5 Min.
		(Attachment 116/1)

2:00 	V	Public Comments/Questions 			30 Min.

2:30	VI	Old Business					20 Min.
	A.	Motion to approve the Unit Criteria for the School 
		of Management, submitted by Ad Hoc Committee 
		on Unit Criteria (Attachment 116/2)
	B.	Motion on Classified Research Policy, submitted by 
		Faculty Affairs (Attachment 116/3) 

2:50		***BREAK***					10 Min.

3:00	VII	Consent Agenda    				  5 Min.
	A.	Resolution of recognition for the UAF rifle team, 
		submitted by Administrative Committee 
		(Attachment 116/4)
	B.	Motion to approve the list of the 2002-2003 degree 
		candidates, submitted by Administrative Committee 
		(Attachment 116/5)
	C.	Motion to amend the Reserving Courses for Graduate 
		Programs policy, submitted by Curricular Affairs 
		(Attachment 116/6)
	D.	Motion to delete the Certificate in Emergency Services
		(formerly Fire Science), submitted by Curricular Affairs 
		(Attachment 116/7)
	E.	Resolution of Recognition for Godwin Chukwu, submitted 
		By Administrative Committee (Attachment 116/8)

3:05	VIII	New Business					15 Min.
	A.	Motion on mandatory placement policy, submitted by 
		Developmental Studies and Curricular Affairs 
		(Attachment 116/9)
	B.	Motion to approve a statement with the IAS Student 
		Evaluation package, submitted by Faculty Development, 
		Assessment & Improvement (Attachment 116/10)
	C.	Report on the Joint Ph.D. Proposal, submitted by 
		Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee 
		(Attachment 116/11)

3:20	IX	Annual Committee Reports 			10 Min.
	A.	Curricular Affairs - R. Illingworth (Attachment 116/12 
		& 116/13)
	B.	Faculty Affairs - P. McRoy
	C.	Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee – M. Murray
		(Attachment 116/14)
	D.	Core Review - D. Schamel (Attachment 116/15)
	E.	Curriculum Review - G. Holton
	F.	Developmental Studies - J. Weber (Attachment 116/16)
	G.	Faculty Appeals & Oversight - P. Layer  
		(Attachment 116/17)
	H.	Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement – 
		A. Bult-Ito (Attachment 116/18 & 116/19)
	I.      Ad Hoc Committee on Unit Criteria - G. Holton

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

3:35	XI	Announcements of Award Recipients      	  5 Min.
	A.	Announcement of the Outstanding Senator of the 
		Year Award
	B.	Presentation of Resolution of Recognition for 
		Godwin Chukwu
	C.	Announcement of Usibelli Awards (Attachment 116/20)
	D.	Announcement of Emeriti Faculty Awards 
		(Attachment 116/21)

3:40	XII	Adjournment of the 2002-2003 Faculty Senate   

3:45	XIII	2003-2004 Faculty Senate Members Take Their Seats
	A.	Roll Call of 2003-2004 Members   		  5 Min.
	B	President's Remarks - Pete Pinney		  5 Min. 

3:55	XIV	New Senate Business  				15 Min.
	A.	Motion to endorse 2003-2004 committee 
		membership, submitted by Administrative 
		Committee (Attachment 116/22)
	B.	Motion to approve the 2003-2004 UAF Faculty 
		Senate meeting calendar, submitted by 
		Administrative Committee (Attachment 116/23)
	C.	Motion to authorize the Administrative Committee 
		to act on behalf of the Senate during the summer 
		months, submitted by Administrative Committee 
		(Attachment 116/24)

4:15	XV	Adjournment

4:30  	Reception  & Presentation of Awards  	Wood Center C/D

ATTACHMENT 116/1
UAF Faculty Senate #116
May 5, 2003

Final Progress Report of the 02/03 Academic Year to Faculty Senate
Faculty Senate Budget Liaison - Abel Bult-Ito
24 April 2003

This is my final report for the 02/03 Academic Year.  

I would first of all like to thank Chancellor Marshall Lind, Provost Paul Reichardt, Joe Trubacz, Director of Planning, Analysis & Institutional Research (PAIR) and Director of Financial Services, Vice-Provost for Research Ted DeLaca, and their staff for their openness, help, and support.  It has been a true pleasure working with you.

This spring semester, I have focused on three major issues initially identified by the Faculty Affairs Committee.  These are:

1.	Allocation of funds for Academic and Administrative purposes over the past 5 years.  I received a UAF FY98-FY02 Actual Expenditures by Unit (BOR Structure) and Fund spreadsheet from Joe Trubacz and Judy Brainerd (Financial Services), which is the basis for this analysis.  I should state up front that at the present time I have no detailed information about fund allocations within each unit and therefore can only present general trends.

   General Findings: 
a.	Increases in funds allocated for executive administrative purposes in Fairbanks far outpaced those of any other category in 7 representative academic units (CLA, CSEM, SOE, SOM, SME, TVC, SFOS).  In fact, all the Dean’s offices in these units had higher increases than funds allocated for academic purposes (and research in SFOS).  The CSEM Dean’s office funds increased by 550%, but a significant portion of this is due to several programs, such as the Center for Nanotechnology.  On average, including the central administration and excluding CSEM, funds for the executive administrative purposes increased 3.5-fold compared to funds allocated for academic (and research for SFOS) purposes. 
b.	For the rural campuses (Bristol Bay, Northwest, Kuskokwim), this relationship was reversed with on average almost flat administrative funding over the past 5 years (+2.6%) compared to on average a 48.2% increase in funds allocated for academic purposes.  The budgets in two of the rural campuses are relatively small compared to units in Fairbanks and therefore relatively small changes in funds may have large effects on the percentages presented.
c.	Student services broadly defined (library, UAF Stud. Ctr. & Other Business Act., Dean/VC Student Services Office, Student Life & Related Programs) increased a modest 9.9% over the past 5 years.
d.	Governance funding decreased by 16.2% over the past 5 years.
e.	Research institutes such as GI and IAB were not surveyed because I did not have a breakdown of funds that distinguished administration funds from research funds.

   Recommendations:
a.	For the next academic year, I suggest that the Budget Liaison investigate these findings in more detail to identify particular areas of potential concern.
b.	Considering the apparent disproportionate growth of the executive administration, I would like to suggest that the UAF administration double their portion of the tax, which most likely will be leveraged against every UAF unit during the 03/04 budget year.  So, instead of the 6% tax proposed for each unit during the Budget Open Forum on 22 April 2003, I suggest that the executive administration take a 12% tax on their administrative units.
c.	I strongly encourage the UAF administration to give a rationale for the disproportionate growth of executive administration at UAF in Fairbanks.

Representative snapshot of funding increases from AY98 to AY02 for UAF (x $1,000)					
					
BOR structure	Department	FY98	FY02	Percent Change	
					
College of Liberal Arts	Academic (Departments + Programs)	10,601.60	12,229.80	15.36	
	Dean's Office	290.1	352.8	21.61	
	KUAC	1,886.70	2,059.80	9.17	
	Total	12,778.40	14,642.40	14.59	
					
College of Science, Engineering and 	Academic (Departments + Programs)	8,847.10	8,697	-1.70	
Mathematics	Dean's Office	457.4	2,973.30	550.04	
	Total	9,304.50	11,670	25.43	
					
School of Education	Academic	2,337.60	3,923.60	67.85	
	Dean's Office	111.7	240.9	115.67	
	Total	2,449.30	4,164.50	70.03	
					
School of Management	Academic (Departments)	2,285.80	2,490.10	8.94	
	Dean's Office	526.9	804.5	52.69	
	Total	2,812.70	3,294.60	17.13	
					
School of Mineral Engineering	Academic (Departments + Programs)	2,004.50	2,569.50	28.19	
	Dean's Office	92.5	204.5	121.08	
	Total	2,097.00	2,774.00	32.28	
					
School of Fisheries and Ocean 	School minus Dean’s Office	18,813.9	24,696.3	31.27	
Sciences	Dean’s Office	244.6	547.9	124.0	
	School minus Dean’s Office controlled funds	17,836.4	22,045.3	23.60	
	Dean’s Office Controlled Funds (Associate Dean, Dean, Dean Managed Activities, Fiscal Office)	1,222.1	3,198.9	161.75	
	Total	19,058.5	25,244.2	32.45	
					
Tanana Valley Campus	Academic (Gen. Ed. + Voc Tech.)	4,151.50	5,713.10	37.62	
	Administrative + Director's Office	271.00	629.80	132.40	
	Total	4,422.50	6,342.90	43.42	
					
Central Administration	Office of the Chancellor	822.40	896.90	9.06	
	Office of the Provost	2,173.60	4,323.40	98.91	
	Total	2,996.00	5,220.30	74.24	
					
Bristol Bay	Academic	767.6	1,228	59.98	
	Administration	309.6	292.6	-5.49	
	Total	1077.2	1,521	41.16	
					
Northwest Campus	Academic	840.9	1,348.10	60.32	
	Administration	295.6	354.7	19.99	
	Total	1136.5	1,702.80	49.83	
					
Kuskokwin Campus	Academic	1,935.90	2,408.90	24.43	
	Administrative + Director's Office	618.2	576.4	-6.76	
	Total	2,554.10	2,985.30	16.88	
					
Students Services Broadly Defined	Library	7,092.10	7,989.80	12.66	
	UAF Stud. Ctr. & Other Business Act.	5,996.50	6,536.10	9.00	
	Dean/VC Student Services Office	83.7	71.2	-14.93	
	Student Life & Related Programs	6,926.40	7,496	8.22	
	Total	20,098.70	22,093	9.92	
					
Governance	Faculty Senate and other governance related activities	147.2	123.3	-16.24	
					
Snapshot overview of priorities in UAF funding:					
	Average Percent increase	n=			
Administrative Fairbanks	149.0	8	91.67	Minus CSEM; n=7	
Academic Rural	48.24	3			
Academic Fairbanks	26.04	6	26.79	Plus SFOS minus Dean’s Office; n=7	
Student Services Broadly Defined	9.92	1			
Administrative Rural	2.58	3			
Governance	-16.24	1			

2.	Impact of the F&A tax on non-overhead bearing grants.
   Some facts about the F&A tax:
a.	Provost Paul Reichardt: "The basic rationale, of course, is that the F&A costs are there whether the agency pays it or not.  The situation we got into was that 'low/no overhead' grants and contracts had become a substantial portion of our external funding.  Our inability to fund more support positions (e.g., grants and contracts, proposal office) was affecting our ability to conduct the business necessary to support the increased activity.  Things were getting worse because we were just taking more and more of these no/low overhead grants and contracts.  Since voluntary restraint wasn't evident, the business folks had no choice but to force the issue.  The final tax arrangement was agreed upon by deans/directors as the 'least worse' option."
b.	Provost Paul Reichardt: "They [F&A Tax funds] become part of the general fund, so they're not earmarked for any particular expense."

   General Findings and Conclusions:
Lee Anna Balcom of the Office of Sponsored Programs provided me with information regarding grants submitted during November 02, December 02, and January 03.  During November 02 the F&A tax was instituted.  This information included total number of grants submitted, $ amounts requested, $ amounts of overhead (F&A) bearing portion (MTDC Base), % of overhead, % of overhead recovery.  Lee’s efforts were truly heroic because each paper proposal had to be pulled from the file to obtain this information.  The results are summarized in the table below.  Overall, 16.8% of grant proposals submitted have reduced overhead recovery, which represents 11.2% of total funds requested.  11.7% of grant proposals submitted are charged an F&A tax of 2-10% if funded.  Overall, if all grants were funded, the reduced overhead recovery would result in a potential loss of $1,937,258 compared to full overhead recovery, which is 9% of total actual overhead recovery possible.  This is incidentally very close to the maximum F&A tax of 10%.

In conclusion, it appears that the F&A tax affect about 11.7% of grant proposals submitted if funded and potential loss of overhead totals about 9% of total actual overhead recovery possible.

Month	Grant Proposal Type	Number of Grants	Total Requested	MTDC Base	Full Overhead Recovery	Actual Recovery	
November 02	Full Overhead Recovery	40	$23,177,485	$10,767,503	$5,260,859	$5,260,859	
	Reduced Overhead Recovery (ROR)	13 (8: 2-10% tax)	$3,648,874	$2,951,728	$1,023,253	$225,289	
	ROR % of Total	24.5%	7.3%	21.5%	16.3%	4.1%	
							
December 02	Full Overhead Recovery	34	$22.989.045	$13,134,344	$6,502,431	$6,502,431	
	Reduced Overhead Recovery (ROR)	7 (4: 2-10% tax)	$6,402.026	$4,165,977	$1,274,903	$334,218	
	ROR % of Total	17.1%	21.8%	24.1%	16.4%	4.9%	
							
January 03	Full Overhead Recovery	75	$37,893,204	$18,288,366	$9,067,726	$9,067,726	
	Reduced Overhead Recovery (ROR)	10 (9: 2-10% tax)	$600,770	$590,784	$223,681	$25,072	
	ROR % of Total	11.8%	1.6%	3.1%	2.4%	0.3%	
							
November 02-	Full Overhead Recovery	149	$84,059,734	$42,190,213	$20,831,016	$20,831,016	
January 03	Reduced Overhead Recovery (ROR)	30 (21: 2-10% tax)	$10,651,670	$7,708,489	$2,521,837	$584,579
(Potential loss of $1,937,258): 9% of total	
	ROR % of Total	16.8%	11.2%	15.4%	10.8%	2.7%	

3.	The number of UAF administrative, faculty, and other positions over the past 5 years.
Joe Trubacz supplied me with information on the number of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) positions in the occupational categories of Executive/Administrative/Management, Faculty, Other Professionals, Secretarial/Clerical, Service/Maintenance, Skilled Craft, Technical/Para Professional, and other.  In addition, Joe provided me with information about funding sources.

General Findings: The number Executive/Administrative/Management FTEs were flat over the past 5 years.  Faculty FTEs increased by 32%, while Other Professional FTEs increased by 63%.  Until I receive information about tenure-track and non-tenure-track faculty FTEs and what types of positions are included in the Other Professionals category, I cannot make any firm conclusions at this time, other than that UAF Executive / Administrative / Management positions have not increased over the past 5 years.

Summary of FTEs	
Occupational Category	1998	2002	Change in FTE	% Change	
Executive/Administrative/
Management	68.94	68.25	-0.69	-1	
Faculty	386.33	509.16	122.83	32	
Other Professionals	366.19	597.76	231.57	63	
Secretarial/Clerical	256.33	280.82	24.51	10	
Service/Maintenance	42.25	60.75	18.5	44	
Skilled Craft	116.68	124.25	7.57	6	
Technical/Para Professional	213.02	251.98	38.96	18	
Other	82.86	86.83	3.97	5	
Grand Total	1532.6	1979.85	447.25	29	
					
Fund Group	1998	2002	Change in FTE	% Change	
Unrestricted	1047.84	1172.73	124.89	12	
Restricted	170.81	362.54	191.73	112	
Restricted Fund Budget Offset	153.49	110.12	-43.37	-28	
Recharges	104.35	255.91	151.56	145	
Auxiliaries	38.74	46.62	7.88	20	
Unrestricted Match	10.37	28.33	17.96	173	
Designated	5	2	-3	-60	
Agency	2	2	-1	-50	
Museum Expansion		0.6	0.6		
Grand Total	1532.60	1979.85	447.25	29	

ATTACHMENT 116/2
UAF Faculty Senate #116
May 5, 2003
SUBMITTED BY THE 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.  THOSE THAT MUST PERFORM SIGNIFICANT PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITY AND ATTAINMENT OF PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION AS A CONDITION OF ACCREDITATION MAY CONSIDER A DETAILED PROFESSIONAL/INDUSTRY WORK REPORT OR DOCUMENTATION OF SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF A C.P.A. EXAMINATION AS A PUBLICATION IN A LESSER FORMAT. 

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 116/3
UAF Faculty Senate #116
May 5, 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 conflicts 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 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 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 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 establish and maintain Facilities Security Officers to the degree necessary to ensure the legal compliance of all classified agreements.

10.	A Faculty Research Oversight Committee will be established as a Standing Committee of the Faculty Senate to review all classified and proprietary proposals, grants and contracts to advise the chancellor of their compliance or lack thereof with University policy.  Membership on the committee shall be limited to 9 senators, with no more than 2 members being from the same unit.  The Facilities Security Officer shall be an ex-officio member of the committee.   Committee membership must broadly represent the university community.

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 northern most 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 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 Research Oversight Committee shall use a checklist to determine if a project requires formal review.
  *	The Faculty Research Oversight Committee shall review classified or proprietary proposals and offer recommendations to the chancellor in an expedited fashion.
  *	The Faculty Research Oversight Committee will publish an annual report on the status of classified and proprietary contracts, grants and proposals to the UAF Faculty Senate on an annual basis.
  *	The Faculty Research Oversight Committee (see above) shall also include a person from the Office of Sponsored Research and a designee of the chancellor as ex-officio members.

ATTACHMENT 116/4
UAF Faculty Senate #116
May 5, 2003
SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE

RESOLUTION OF RECOGNITION

WHEREAS, The UAF rifle team won its fifth consecutive NCAA title in March, setting NCAA records in smallbore and aggregate scoring, and 

WHEREAS, Matt Emmons captured the smallbore title for the third straight year, breaking his own NCAA record and becoming the first person to win four individual titles in a career, and 

WHEREAS, Per Sandberg led UAF's air rifle team to a new NCAA composite score, and 

WHEREAS, Jamie Beyerle was crowned the champion in air rifle, the first freshman in school history to win a national title, and 

WHEREAS, Matt Wallace earned a silver medal in smallbore at the Junior Olympics, and 

WHEREAS, Seven members of the Nanook rifle team earned National Rifle Association All-American status based on their performance throughout the 2002-2003 season with an emphasis on the NCAA sectionals and their grade point averages, now 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the UAF Faculty Senate congratulates the 2002-2003 UAF rifle team as NCAA champion and commends the team's superior performance.  

Godwin A. Chukwu
President, UAF Faculty Senate

April 23, 2003

ATTACHMENT 116/5
UAF Faculty Senate #116
May 5, 2003
SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate recommends to the Board of Regents that the attached list of individuals be awarded the appropriate UAF degrees pending completion of all University requirements.  [Note:  copy of the list is available in the Governance Office, 312 Signers' Hall.]

	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately

	RATIONALE: 	These degrees are granted upon 
		recommendation of the program faculty, as verified by 
		the appropriate department head.  As the representative 
		governance group of the faculty, we are making that 
		recommendation.

ATTACHMENT 116/6
UAF Faculty Senate #116
May 5, 2003
SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the Reserving Courses for Graduate Programs policy (page 26 of the 2003-04 UAF catalog) as follows:

[[    ]] 	= Deletion

______ 	= Addition

CAPS  	= Addition

RESERVING COURSES FOR GRADUATE PROGRAMS

If [[you're]] YOU ARE a senior with only a few remaining requirements for your bachelor's degree, you may take courses at the 400-LEVEL [[upper division]] or graduate level and have them reserved for an advanced degree.  To do this, you must be in your final year of an undergraduate program and must submit a written petition during the first four weeks of the semester identifying which courses being taken that semester are to be reserved for graduate study and not counted toward your bachelor's degree.  (Reserving courses does not, however, assure they will be accepted by a graduate advisory committee as part of your eventual graduate program.)  

	EFFECTIVE:  Immediately

	RATIONALE:   This motion specifies the upper division level 
		requirement that is allowed in graduate programs.  
		Current policy is out of compliance with graduate 
		program requirements.

ATTACHMENT 116/7
UAF Faculty Senate #116
May 5, 2003
SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to delete the Emergency Services (formerly Fire Science) Certificates.  

	EFFECTIVE:  	Fall 2003 or 
			Upon Board of Regents' Approval

	RATIONALE: 	See full program proposal #28 on file in the 
			Governance Office, 312 Signers’ Hall.

		The demand for Emergency Services (formerly Fire 
		Science) Certificates with concentrations in Emergency 
		Medical Services, Hazardous Materials Control, Municipal 
		Fire Control, Public Safety, and Wildlands Fire Control 
		have always been low.  

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

Executive Summary
Certificate, Emergency Services

The UAF-TVC Emergency Services (formerly Fire Science) Program requests the deletion of Certificates in Municipal Fire Control, Wildlands Fire Control, Hazardous Materials Control, Public Safety, and Emergency Medical Services.  Since 1979 only 25 certificates have been issued compared to 283 A.A.S. degrees and 6 B.T. degrees.  Most fire departments place little value on certificates compared to A.A.S. degrees for hiring and promotions.  This was confirmed by outcomes assessment questionnaires from both employers and graduates that indicate a new trend within the fire service.  Employers are now seeking emergency personnel that are proficient in areas of written and oral communication, computation and human relations rather than graduates with only the FIRE and EMS courses.  Graduates without general education skills are unable to pass highly competitive written entrance exams administered by larger fire departments for placement on hiring rosters.  The certificate has outlived it usefulness for highly competitive careers in fire departments and emergency services.  Graduates seeking leadership roles in the fire services are recognizing the benefit of completing the B.T. degree which combines the technical knowledge of the A.A.S. degree with business administration to become Fire Chiefs of the future.  

ATTACHMENT 116/8
UAF Faculty Senate #116
May 5, 2003
SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE

RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION
FOR
GODWIN A. CHUKWU

WHEREAS, Godwin Chukwu has professionally and ethically served the Faculty Senate since 1999; and,

WHEREAS, Godwin Chukwu has served as a member of the Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee from 1999 to 2001, and as Chair from 2000 to 2001; and,

WHEREAS, Godwin Chukwu initiated the Faculty Senate newsletter to better inform the faculty on pertinent university information that would assist faculty in their jobs; and,

WHEREAS, Godwin Chukwu included rural sites prominently in faculty discussions by virtue of conducting meetings from extended campuses throughout the year; and,

WHEREAS, Godwin Chukwu has served as Chair of the Administrative Committee and as President-Elect of the UAF Faculty Senate for 2001-2002; and,

WHEREAS, Godwin Chukwu has served as a member of the UAF Governance Coordinating Committee from 2001-2003; and 

WHEREAS, Godwin Chukwu has served as a member of the Faculty Alliance and UA Systemwide Governance Council from 2001-2003; and,

WHEREAS, Godwin Chukwu has served as President of the UAF Faculty Senate from 2002-2003; and,

WHEREAS, the UAF Faculty Senate wishes to acknowledge the outstanding service rendered the faculty and the university by Godwin Chukwu, as he concludes his term as President; now,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the UAF Faculty Senate acknowledges the many contributions of Godwin Chukwu and expresses its appreciation for his exemplary service.

					Pete Pinney
				President, UAF Faculty Senate
					May 5, 2003

ATTACHMENT 116/9
UAF Faculty Senate #116
May 5, 2003
SUBMITTED BY DEVELOPMENTAL STUDIES & CURRICULAR AFFAIRS

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate, upon recommendation of the Developmental Studies Committee and the Curricular Affairs Committee, moves to approve the following Mandatory Placement Policy:

Placement Policy

	Students who do not meet basic skills standards in reading, writing, and mathematics must complete appropriate Developmental Education course instruction.  Such students should not enroll in 100-level or above courses that depend on these skills until they have satisfactorily met the exit criteria of the appropriate Developmental Education course(s).

	EFFECTIVE:  	Fall 2003 to be phased in gradually 
		over the next two years.

	RATIONALE: 	Current policies in place at UAF require 
		assessment and advising, but not placement.  First-term 
		students entering certificate or degree programs, 
		transfer students with less than 30 acceptable credits, 
		and non-degree seeking students planning on taking 100-
		level written communication or mathematics courses, or 
		courses with these as a prerequisite, will be assessed in 
		reading, writing, and mathematics.  The UAF Developmental 
		Studies program underwent an external review during 
		AY 2002.  One of the recommendations of that external 
		review was to establish a mandatory placement policy.  
		Because implementation of this policy is likely to require 
		the establishment of additional sections of existing 
		courses and additional assessment opportunities, the 
		recommendation included a phase-in approach over a 
		2 year period.

		The professional associations for the Developmental 
		Studies area, the National Association of Developmental 
		Education (NADE), the College Reading and Learning 
		Association (CRLA), American Mathematical Association of 
		Two Year Colleges (AMATYC) all recommend mandatory 
		assessment and mandatory placement.  These 
		recommendations are based on the results of extensive 
		national research projects.  These two elements, 
		mandatory assessment and mandatory placement, have 
		been identified as two elements which have a strong 
		correlation with increased student success in college-level 
		coursework.

ATTACHMENT 116/10
UAF Faculty Senate #116
May 5, 2003
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY DEVELOPMENT, ASSESSMENT & IMPROVEMENT

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate, upon recommendation of the Faculty Development Assessment, and Improvement Committee, moves to approve the following addition to the IAS student evaluation package:

PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT TO THE CLASS.  (If possible have your department chair visit your class and read this statement, and take questions.)

Since 1980 UAF students have been filling out teaching evaluations at the end of each class each semester.  There are several important reasons for this exercise:

1.	To aid future students by curriculum improvement;
2.	To aid future students by improvement of teaching by 
	individual faculty members; 
3.	To aid future students in course selection;
4.	For input in faculty tenure and/or promotion reviews.

The evaluation consists of TWO different forms. The first is computer-scored.  Each question on this form needs to be carefully read and answered.  Questions 1-4 are the most important and relevant, so pay special attention to them.  The average of these four questions is the primary measure of the instructor's performance in the class.  The statistical results from this form are returned, well after grades are submitted, to the instructor and their dean.  They also go into the instructor's permanent file.

The yellow comment forms are returned, well after grades are submitted, to the instructor ONLY.  Use this form to give your faculty member helpful suggestions about improving the class.

Your careful input on both forms is very important.

	EFFECTIVE:   	Immediately

	RATIONALE:   	During extensive discussions in the Faculty 
		Development Assessment, and Improvement Committee, 
		areas were identified, which could improve the IAS student 
		evaluation process.  One of those included the 
		improvement of students' understanding of the 
		importance of the IAS and “yellow sheet” evaluations 
		and what they are used for.  This motion will establish 
		such an improvement.

ATTACHMENT 116/11
UAF Faculty Senate #116
May 5, 2003
SUBMITTED BY GRADUATE ACADEMIC & ADVISORY COMMITTEE

A Report on the Draft Guidelines for Developing UA Joint Doctoral Programs

Prepared by: Graduate Academic and Advisory Committee 

April 25, 2003

At the request of the UAF Faculty Senate, the Graduate Academic Advisory Committee prepared the following review of the Draft Guidelines for the Development of UA Joint Doctoral Programs.  As part of the report preparation process a sub-committee of the GAAC held four public meetings to solicit input on the Draft Guidelines for the Development of UA Joint Doctoral Programs, and met with members of the drafting committee, the Dean of the Graduate School, the UAF Provost, and interested and affected UAF faculty.

As the GAAC understands it the purpose of the Draft Guidelines document is to provide an overarching framework for joint Ph.D. development within the UA system.  While such a framework may be a worthy endeavor, the committee has many concerns about the present document.  Major concerns include the following: 

1) The Draft provides no information as to the level of financial commitment, if any, on the part of the affected MAU's for developing the infrastructure identified within and/or for supporting new program development. 

2) The document creates an unwieldy, and probably costly new administrative structure that is unlikely to serve departments, individual programs, and students to best effect.  The Draft requires the creation of one new administrative position (Dean of the Joint Doctoral Programs), as well as new committees above the department and faculty levels to approve programs, curriculum, and admissions.  At least one of these new committees, the Joint Steering Committee for Each Proposed Joint Ph.D. Program has no faculty representation, while the other committees consist of members appointed by administration. 

3) The proposed Joint Ph.D. model is driven from the top down rather than by the faculty, or from the bottom up. 

As such the GAAC does not recommend adoption of the guidelines outlined in the Draft document.  Further the committee suggests that existing regulations for Ph.D. admissions, UAF requirements for doctoral degrees, and degree granting provide sufficient guidelines for managing new joint programs, the specifics of which must be worked out at the faculty level.  Initiatives to develop joint degrees should be driven co-operatively by the faculty within interested departments in the UA system. 

The existing model for collaborative UAF/UAA doctoral degrees is probably sufficient for most programs, although the development of Joint Doctoral programs may benefit some.  The committee understands that UAF is the Doctoral granting institution in the state of Alaska and recommends that the development of Joint Doctoral Programs should not affect this.  The process and proposal developed by faculty for a Joint UAF/UAA Doctoral Program in Psychology is one example of how other departments might proceed in such an endeavor.  Information on the Psychology Proposal will be made available on the Faculty Senate web site.

ATTACHMENT 116/12
UAF Faculty Senate #116
May 5, 2003

Curricular Affairs Committee Meeting Report

The Curricular Affairs committee held audioconferenced meetings on 9 and 23 April and from 1015 am to 1145 am.  Members present included Jim Gladden, Mike Hannigan, Gary Holton, Rainer Newberry, Carol Barnhardt, Gayle Gregory, and Ron Illingworth.  Guests included Becky Norris from the Admissions Office, and Delena Norris-Tull from the School of Education.

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.  Final wording of the proposed motion was discussed and confirmed.  The joint motion will be presented at the May 5 Faculty Senate meeting.

Final wording for the catalog is as follows:
	Students who do not meet basic skills standards in reading, writing, and mathematics must complete appropriate Developmental Education course instruction.  Such students should not enroll in 100 level or above courses that depend on these standards until they have satisfactorily met the exit criteria of the appropriate Developmental Education course(s).

2.	 Related to advising and assessment, Carol Barnhardt and Gayle Gregory reported on proposed wording which would be included in the notification of acceptance that the Admissions Office sends to new students regarding the request to provide their high school qualifying exam reports when they meet with their advisors.  Wording to be added to the Admissions Office letter is as follows:

Please bring copies of your high school qualifying exam reports when you go for advising to assist in determining accurate placement.

The committee received assurances that the letter would be changed to reflect this request.

3.	The committee discussed and approved a motion submitted by the Graduation office to change the wording in the catalog regarding the policy on Reserving Courses for Graduate Programs.  Existing policy limits these courses to 400-level.  Current catalog wording reflects upper-division.  A motion changing the catalog information is being forwarded for the 5 May Faculty Senate meeting.
4.	The committee approved a change to the Transfer Credit option for the Child Development Associate Credential in Early Childhood reducing the number of credits accepted from 11-13 transfer credits to 6 credits.  This was a change negotiated by the Early Childhood statewide coordinating committee.
5.	Transfer Credit Equivalency.  The committee reviewed and approved two requests for transfer credit equivalency.  Both requests were in the Emergency Services program of CRA and acknowledged the EMS training completed by two individuals.
6.	Deletion of Emergency Services Certificate.  The committee reviewed and approved a proposal to eliminate the following certificates from the Emergency Services program: Municipal Fire Control, Wildland Fire Control, Hazardous Materials Control, Public Safety, And Emergency Medical Services.  Student participation in these certificates have been low and the certificates do not result in increased student access to employment.  On the contrary, employers want students to have completed the related AAS degrees rather than these certificates.  A motion deleting these certificates has been provided for the 5 May Faculty Senate meeting.
7.	Academic Bankruptcy.  The committee approved a wording change which changes the term "Academic Bankruptcy for Returning Students" to "Fresh Start for Returning Students".  No changes to policy were made.
8.	Discussions regarding the attendance policy, syllabus guidelines, course credit/contact hours computation, and non-traditional student testing requirements prior to admissions ensued and a determination was made to continue these issues to next year.

Respectfully submitted
Ronald D. Illingworth, Chair

ATTACHMENT 116/13
UAF Faculty Senate #116
May 5, 2003
SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS

Curricular Affairs Committee Annual Report - Ron Illingworth, Chair

The Curricular Affairs committee held audioconferenced meetings 12 times this year.  Members included Mike Hannigan, Carol Barnhardt, James Gladden, Gary Holton, Rainer Newberry, William Schneider, Eduard Zilberkant, Ron Illingworth, Ron Slominski, Gayle Gregory, Wanda Martin, and Shannon Uzzell.

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

The committee addressed a spectrum of issues ranging from new degree approvals to academic policy changes, reinterpretation, and reaffirmations.  Examples of activities include the following:

   *	Approved new degree and certificate programs
	1.	BS in Computer Engineering
	2.	New minor in Environmental Politics
	3.	New Certificate and AAS in Educator: Para-Professional

   *	Approved changes to the AAS degree requirements.

   *	Approved changes to the Certificate requirements to incorporate the Related Instruction areas of communication, computation, and human relations.

   *	Approved a name change to the Freshman Low Grade Report making it the Freshmen Progress Report and requiring its use at all UAF campuses.

   *	With the Core Review committee, approved requiring that ENGL 211X or ENGL 213X be prerequisites for all "W" Courses.

   *	Approved the deletion of the BA in Human Services (HMSV).

   *	Approved the deletion of all certificates in the Emergency Services program.

The committee also approved several Transfer Course Equivalency decisions for non-traditional students seeking recognition of their external education.

Topics continued for future resolution include those related to the expanding role of distance delivery at UAF and institutional barriers or disincentives to student success.  Some of the issues raised cross into the Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee, Faculty Affairs, and to the Unions and will require more extensive discussion than was available for them this year.  Issues continued until next year include the following:
   *	Credit equivalency standards for courses not taught synchronously
   *	Syllabus guidelines
   *	Course credit/contact hours particularly for internships, apprenticeships, etc.
   *	Non-traditional student testing requirements prior to admissions
   *	Academic Disqualification policy review
   *	Academic Probation policy review

The committee noted with regret that the student representative was not appointed until late in the Fall semester and was unable to participate in Spring semester meetings.  Additionally, the representative from the Provost's Council was unable to attend most meetings.  Participation of these two representatives is crucial to our understanding of issues that affect students and administration at this University.  We hope that these two positions will be filled at the beginning of the Fall semester and that the representatives will be active members of the committee.

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

Respectfully submitted, Ronald D. Illingworth

ATTACHMENT 116/14
UAF Faculty Senate #116
May 5, 2003
SUBMITTED BY GRADUATE ACADEMIC AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE

GRADUATE ACADEMIC AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE
2002-2003 UAF FACULTY SENATE

ANNUAL REPORT

Committee Members:

Ed Buehler, Mathematics; Abhijit Dandekar, Petroleum Engineering; Mary Erhlander, Northern Studies/History; Rolf Gradinger, SFOS/IMS; Meriam Karlsson, Plant/Animal/Soil Science; John Ma, Civil and Environmental Engineering; Pamela McWherter, Communication; Christa Mulder, Biology and Wildlife/IAB; Maribeth Murray, Anthropology (GAAC Chair); Doug Reynolds, Economics

Ex-Officio:
Joe Kan, Dean, Graduate School
Paul McCarthy/Dennis Stephens. Library/Collections Development
Ron Slominski/Gayle Gregory, University Registrar/Grad. Office

Summary of Activities

In addition to regularly reviewing many course and program requests, the GAAC addressed the following in 2002/2003:

(1) Stacked Courses
In response to problems identified by the 2001/2002 GAAC a review of stacked 400/600 level courses was prepared.  GAAC continues to see problems with the approval of new 400/600 level courses, especially as pertains to different requirements for students enrolled at the 600 level.  Approximately 80% of proposed new 400/600 level courses did not make adequate distinction between the undergraduate and graduate level requirements and the committee had to seek clarification from the instructor(s) on this matter.  Moreover GAAC has concerns that high percentages of stacked courses in a degree program suggest the appearance of weakness, that little attention is paid to the potential increase in faculty workload associated with stacked courses, and that stacked courses do not necessarily increase enrollment although this is often offered as justification for stacking.

(2) Joint Ph.D.
At the request of the UAF Faculty Senate, the Graduate Academic Advisory Committee reviewed the Draft Guidelines for the Development of UA Joint Doctoral Programs.  As part of the report preparation process a sub-committee of the GAAC held four public meetings and met with members of the drafting committee, the Dean of the Graduate School, the UAF Provost, and interested and affected UAF faculty.  The committee identified a number of difficulties with the Draft Guidelines, including the development of an unwieldy new administrative structure, and  recommends to the Faculty Senate that the Guidelines not be adopted.

(3) Lesser Items 

a) The GAAC issued a memo to Department Heads suggesting catalogue updates to identify courses which are available online, in addition to in the classroom.

b) The GAAC issues a memo to Deans, Directors and Department Heads that provides information about changes to INS regulations affecting International Graduate Students

c) The GAAC requested an amendment of the Advancement to Candidacy and the Change of Committee forms to include a line for a dated signature by the graduate student. 

d) Considered (and rejected) a request to make a motion to the Faculty Senate to lower the number of required project credits from six to three for the General Master's requirement.

e) Discussed a proposal to lower the number of credits for which a student must enroll in order to maintain active status, and discussed the possibility of a tuition reduction and required credit enrollment reduction for students who have advanced to candidacy, or who are conducting extended field work off-campus.

f) Requested from the Graduation Office the addition of a line to the graduate diploma that states MA/MS with thesis, and requested that the thesis title and successful defense date be added to student transcripts.

Business for 03/04

(1) Distance Delivery of Graduate Courses

The GAAC sees the need to implement some quality control into the process of on-line graduate course development.  Currently on-line courses do not require a submission of a formal request to the GAAC nor do student evaluations take into account the specific strengths and weaknesses of on-line delivery.  Discussion resulted in the suggestion that a joint CAC (Curricular Affairs)/GAAC working group on "Technology Enhanced Education" should examine the issues identified above.
 
(2) Moldy Courses
The GAAC would like to improve the Graduate Catalog for UAF by removing, from the paper catalog, those courses which have not been taught for at least six years.   The catalog is an important guide for students, staff and faculty and courses mentioned in it should reflect the real university world in Fairbanks.  The 2002/003 GAAC recommends that next year’s committee review current catalogue offering and develop guidelines for purging 'moldy' courses. 

ATTACHMENT 116/15
UAF Faculty Senate #116
May 5, 2003
SUBMITTED BY CORE REVIEW

Highlight of activities 2002-'03
Core Review Committee

Members: D.A. Bartlett (ENGL), Jin Brown (COMM), Jill Faudree (MATH), Mary Goodwin (ART), John Heaton (HIST), Paul McCarthy (LIB), Rainer Newberry (GEOS), Douglas Schamel, Chair (CSEM/SOE)

Ex-Officio:  Sue McHenry (RSS), Wanda Martin (Advising Center)

The Core Review Committee met, on average, once every three weeks.  We also held discussions via email.  

PETITIONS

A major part of our task was reviewing petitions.    

We made numerous interesting discoveries this year while examining petitions.  For example, if a student completes BA 151 at UAA, they may bring that course to UAF as a substitute for HIST 100X.  If the student completes the same course, BA 151, at UAF it will not substitute for HIST 100X.  This led us to re-think the "Perspectives" (see below).

MOTIONS TO THE FACULTY SENATE

We took several motions to the Faculty Senate this academic year.

1) Core science and mathematics courses may be used for both Core requirements AND for major or minor requirements.  If a student has completed an adequate body of knowledge for a major or minor, it does not really matter how that knowledge is "boxed".  This motion passed.

2) ENGL 211X or 213X will be a prerequisite for all "W" courses.  This is merely an alignment of the UAF curriculum, to assist faculty and students to be more efficient and effective in "W" courses.  As with any prerequisite, the "….or permission of instructor" clause can get around this requirement.  This motion passed.

3) We clarified the transfer guidelines for PHIL 322X (or other ethics courses), by stating that lower-division courses could be used, after review and approval of the PHIL Dept. Head.  This amounted to "truth in advertising", since it merely spells out our current practice.  This motion passed.

ASSESSMENT OF THE CORE

Every year, several "O" courses and several "W" courses are chosen at random for Core assessment.  Typically, these courses are chosen from the Spring semester.  We opted to assess Fall semester courses this year.  

Some Core science courses and all Core mathematics courses are up for assessment this spring. 

PROPOSALS FOR ADDITIONS TO THE "PERSPECTIVES"

During Fall semester, one freshman-level PETE course and one CHEM course were brought forward as potential additions to the "Perspectives".  Neither proposal was successful.  In both cases, it would have helped the proposers to discuss their ideas with the departments with alternative course offerings.

NEWS COLUMN IN THE "SUN-STAR"

We really wanted to broadcast Core changes to students via the Sun-Star this year.  All looked bright in the beginning; the student paper published an article about changes in mathematics (addition of MATH 161X) and science (allowing a "mix and match" of breadth and depth science courses).  We hoped to turn this into a weekly or biweekly column of academic tips for success.  Neither one of two subsequent submissions to the Sun-Star resulted in published articles (one from the Student Support Services Program and one from the Advising Center).  We were told that "there were too many other important issues" to address.  With luck, we may be able to publish at least one article in the paper next year ---- dealing with crafting a successful petition.

AN IDEA LEFT HIGH AND DRY

We began the year with a discussion about adding "computer literacy" to the Core.  Several suggestions arose, such as including it as part of LS 101X and/or imbedding it in advanced courses (as is the practice with "W" and "O").  There was some discussion about building a "needs assessment" questionnaire to gather information from departments.  This did not occur.

IDEAS FOR 2003-04

We spent considerable time in our last three meetings talking about the "Perspectives".  The committee is pretty well divided on whether to open a discussion about re-examining our current "Perspectives".  As committee chair, I think such a conversation would be healthy.

ATTACHMENT 116/16
UAF Faculty Senate #116
May 5, 2003
SUBMITTED BY DEVELOPMENTAL STUDIES

Developmental Studies Committee, 2002-2003 Annual Report

Accomplishments: 

Developmental Studies Assessment and Recommendations:  

A site visit by Hunter Boylan, David Caverly, and Irene Doo, took place April 2-5, 2002.  The team wrote up a report with thirteen recommendations which they forwarded to Chancellor Lind, Provost Reichardt, CRA Dean Joseph, and TVC Director Poole.  Members of the Developmental Studies Committee each received a copy of the report, as well.   Evaluating and refining the suggestions made in this report formed the bulk of our committee activities during 2002-2003.  The committee broke into sub groups and reviewed each of the recommendations and made suggestions for implementation.  The committee’s work this year was entirely taken up with the review and revision process.

In reviewing the assessment team’s recommendations, furthermore, the committee took several actions.  First, we forwarded a motion recommending mandatory placement to the Curricular Affairs Committee.  After Curricular Affairs reviewed and discussed the motion, it was returned to us with further suggestions.  We incorporated those suggestions into the motion and it will be presented to the Faculty Senate May 5.

We also passed the following motions at our April 3 meeting:

We moved to adopt the recommendations of the Developmental Assessment team as revised, amended, and further developed by the committee as a whole.  These recommendations form the basis of our plan for the creation of the Developmental Education Department.

We moved that the committee’s current oversight function be transferred to the Developmental Education Department, its faculty, committees, coordinators, and chair, effective Fall 2003.

The Committee recommendations were delivered to Reichardt, Joseph, and Poole on April 22, with the following priorities for FY 04:

Creation of a Developmental Education department to be in place by Fall 2003,

Hiring of an Administrative Assistant and three full-time faculty in the areas of Developmental Math, English, and Reading Skills,

Allocation of office space, furniture, and supplies to accommodate the faculty, staff and students of the new department.

Depending on the outcome of the UAF budget proposal, we will begin hiring and forming the structure of the Developmental Education Department this summer.

The committee has worked long and hard on the issues discussed in the recommendations.  We are eager to begin work on making the recommendations a reality.  This will greatly benefit the students at UAF and will provide links between rural and urban campuses, as well.  We anticipate that implementation of the full recommendations will happen over a three-year period.

Ongoing Issues:

Starting Fall 2003, the committee will begin to function as a Curricular Review committee with oversight of Developmental Curriculum.  This will change the nature of the committee’s work, since it has been operating as a de facto department for Developmental faculty serving on the committee.  The Committee’s first task in the fall, then, will be to address its new function and clarify its relationship with the new Developmental Education Department.

ATTACHMENT 116/17
UAF Faculty Senate #116
May 5, 2003
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY APPEALS AND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE

Final report of the Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee (FAOC)
Paul Layer, Chair

The main duties of this committee are to serve on student appeals and to oversee administrator review.  Several members of our committee served on appeals, although we did not get an exact tally.

This year, the only administrator under review was Provost Reichardt.  Senator Eduard Zilberkant chaired the ad hoc committee composed of Joan Roderick, Carol Gold, Paul Layer and Roger Norris-Tull (although Roger withdrew from the committee in January).  The final meeting between the Chancellor, the ad hoc committee chair and the FAOC is scheduled for the week of May 12.  This meeting will complete the review.

The major piece of legislation that the committee was involved in was to develop a process for faculty review of directors and other administrators on the so-called "B-list".  We established a process whereby the FAOC will play a more active role in the process (constituting the review committees).  We also developed a time line whereby ~5 administrators per year will be reviewed.  Over the summer, the FAOC chair will compose a letter to each administrator requesting a CV and other documents and will better refine the review time line.

The committee was asked to develop an appeals process for violations of the Student Code of Conduct.  We discussed this matter with several concerned faculty and members of the Senate Admin. Committee.  Although we recognized the need for this policy we were not able to complete a draft policy, but we will work on it over the summer months and make it our top priority for next year.

At the Senate President’s request, we looked at the Excused Absence Policy to change it to allow for absences due to military service or other mandatory absences.  We want a policy that does not punish a student (either academically or financially) and also does not put undue pressure on faculty to accommodate logistically impossible situations.  We forwarded a simple draft to the Provost who is looking at it.

The committee thanked the Chair for his service in that capacity.  A major disappointment for the committee was the fact that several seats went unfilled.  This year this did not cause undue hardship as there was a sufficient pool to serve on appeals.  However, next year with the expanded role of the FAOC in administrator review, a full committee with representation from all units is critical.

ATTACHMENT 116/18
UAF Faculty Senate #116
May 5, 2003
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY DEVELOPMENT, ASSESSMENT & IMPROVEMENT

Minutes of Faculty Development, Assessment, and Improvement Committee Meeting, Tuesday, 15 April 2003 
Minutes submitted by Abel Bult-Ito

Committee Members Present:  Abel Bult-Ito (Chair), Linda Curda, Lee Haugen, Paul McCarthy, Channon Price, E. Thomas Robinson, Ann Wilson, Shunpu Zhang

Committee Members Absent:  Brian Barnes, Gerald Berman, George Charles, Joy Morrison, Roger Norris-Tull

1.	Abel Bult-Ito reported to the committee that the Faculty Senate unanimously approved the Motion on the Faculty Mentoring Program on 7 April 2003.  Abel commended the committee on a job well done.

2.	Report by the Sub-Committee on Student Evaluations.  The sub-committee (Joy Morrison, Hild Peters, Channon Price) presented a draft of a statement to be read before evaluation forms are handed out to the students.  Small changes were made.  Whether this statement should have Faculty Senate approval before implementation was briefly discussed, but it was agreed that this was not necessary.  Instead, this statement is now in Joy's hands as Director of the Office of Faculty Development and she will distribute the statement to all faculty for use in their classes.  

3.	Report by the Sub-Committee on Faculty Development Travel Award Policy.  The Sub-Committee presented a draft motion.  This motion was discussed and changes were made to reflect concerns about the ad hoc case-by-case basis travel requests are currently reviewed as well as funding availability.  This motion is now ready to be presented to the faculty Senate for approval.

4.	Other business.
Abel briefly discussed some budgetary issues he is working on as Budget Liaison.  He also informed the members that he will not return to this committee, because he is taking on the Faculty Senate President-Elect responsibilities during the next academic year.

ATTACHMENT 116/19
UAF Faculty Senate #116
May 5, 2003
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY DEVELOPMENT, ASSESSMENT & IMPROVEMENT

2002-2003 Academic Year-End-Report of the Faculty Development, Assessment, and Improvement Committee (FDAIC)
Submitted by Abel Bult-Ito (Chair) on 21 April 2003.

Committee Members:  Brian Barnes, Gerald Berman, Abel Bult-Ito (Chair), George Charles, Linda Curda, Lee Haugen, Paul McCarthy, Joy Morrison, Roger Norris-Tull, Channon Price, E. Thomas Robinson, Ann Wilson, Shunpu Zhang

Guests included Joan Braddock, Godwin Chukwu, Hild Peters, Norm Swazo, Jordan Titus.

The FDAIC met 8 times during the 02/03 Academic Year and discussed a variety of issues:

1.	Faculty Mentoring Program.
2.	IAS student evaluation procedures and forms.
3.	Proposed changes of regulations related to unit criteria by the Ad Hoc Committee on Unit Criteria, which were eventually not pursued by the Ad Hoc Committee.
4.	Faculty Development Travel Award Policy.
5.	Reports by Joy Morrison and Abel Bult-Ito on the American Association for Higher Education (AAHE) meeting in March.
6.	Faculty Development at UAF Annual Report (01/02) prepared by Joy Morrison.
7.	Fund for Improving Post Secondary Education (FIPSE) grant presented by Norm Swazo.
8.	Reports on the Ad Hoc Committee on Unit Criteria by Abel Bult-Ito.
9.	Faculty Handbook and its wealth of information for UAF faculty.
10.	Establishment of the Office of Faculty Development.
11.	Alaska Women in Higher Education Conference: Leadership for the New Millennium.
12.	Teaching assessments by peer faculty.
13.	The Tanana Valley Campus Adjunct Faculty Support Group Meeting 19 October 2002.
14.	Reports by Ann Wilson and Joy Morrison on the Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education (POD) Conference held October 2002 in Atlanta, Georgia.
15.	Other faculty development opportunities at UAF during the 02/03 academic year.

Accomplishments:
1.	A motion approving a Faculty Mentoring Program Policy was unanimously approved by the Faculty Senate on 7 April 2003.

2. 	Motions on the IAS Student Evaluation package and a Faculty Development Travel Fund Policy are under consideration by the Administrative Committee and may be presented to the Faculty Senate for approval on 5 May 2003:

3. 	Areas that require additional deliberations during the following academic year:

	a)	If one or both of the proposed motions do not pass the Administration Committee or are not approved by the Faculty Senate on 5 May 2003, these will need to be rewritten and resubmitted.

	b)	Several committee members will continue to work on a short video related to instruction of students about the importance of the student/teaching evaluation process, which will incorporate the statement proposed in Motion 1.  This video will be presented to the Faculty Senate for approving during the next academic year.

	c)	IAS forms.  Norm Swazo and Jordan Titus have indicated that some faculty are unhappy about the use of the IAS teaching evaluation process, particularly the emphasis on IAS scores during tenure and/or promotion reviews.  I suggest that the FDAIC continue their discussions about the IAS student evaluation process and include chairs of peer-review committees and other concerned faculty.  One thing I have emphasized is that the faculty of peer-review units have the responsibility to address these issues by developing their own unit criteria, which can describe what emphasis they want to place on the IAS scores.  This may be another area the FDAIC can address next academic year, by informing units about these responsibilities from a faculty development point of view.

I have very much enjoyed serving as chair of the FDAIC this year and would like to thank all the members and guests for their commitment and hard work, which resulted in a very successful and productive year for the FDAIC.

ATTACHMENT 116/20
UAF Faculty Senate #116
May 5, 2003

Usibelli Award Nominees 2003

Teaching
Rainer Newberry	Professor, Geology/Geophysics  	CSEM  R
John D. Fox 		Assoc. Professor, Resource Management	CNRAS
Ed Husted    		Assoc. Professor, Paralegal Studies    	CRA/TVC
John W. Keller		Professor, Chemistry & Biochemistry  	CSEM
Doug Schamel  		Assoc. Professor, Biology			CSEM

Research
Keith Echelmeyer	Professor, Geophysics			GI    R
Stephen C. Jewett 	Research Professor, Marine Science		SFOS
Zygmunt Kowalik   	Professor, Marine Science			SFOS

Service
Kathleen Butler-Hopkins	Professor, Music			CLA  R
Jeff Freymueller		Assoc. Professor, Geophysics   		CSEM/GI
Roger A. Hansen		State Seismologist & Research Professor 
				of Geophysics       				GI
George Happ   		State Project Director, Alaska EPSCoR And
				Alaska BRIN and Research Professor   	CSEM/IAB
Oscar Kawagley		Assoc. Professor, Education			SOEd
Donald Kramer		Professor of Fisheries & Director of 
				Marine Advisory Program			SFOS
Tara Maginnis			Assoc. Professor, Theatre		CLA
Rich Seifert			Energy Specialist & Professor of 
				Engineering Extension     			CRA/CES

ATTACHMENT 116/21
UAF Faculty Senate #116
May 5, 2003

AY 2002-2003 Emeriti

Dr. Nirendra N. Biswas, CSEM, Professor of Geophysics, Emeritus

Dr. Gary Copus, CLA, Professor of Justice, Emeritus

Mr. John P. Doyle, SFOS, Professor of Fisheries, Emeritus

Dr. Ronald W. Gatterdam, CSEM, Professor of Computer Science and Mathematics, Emeritus

Dr. Joseph R. Kan, CSEM/Provost, Professor of Physics, Emeritus and Dean of the Graduate School, Emeritus

Dr. Carla A. Kirts, SS/SNRAS, Dean of Student Services, Emerita and Associate Professor of Agricultural Education, Emerita

Dr. John S. Leipzig, CLA, Professor of Communication, Emeritus and Dean of the College of Liberal Arts, Emeritus 

Dr. Nagabhushana M.S. Rao, CLA, Professor of Sociology, Emeritus

ATTACHMENT 116/22
UAF Faculty Senate #116
May 5, 2003
SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to endorse the 2003-2004 committee membership as attached.

	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately

	RATIONALE:  	New Senate members' preference for 
		committee selection were reviewed and weighted 
		against membership distribution from schools and 
		colleges.

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

2003 -2004 UAF FACULTY SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

STANDING COMMITTEES

Curricular Affairs
	Carol Barnhardt, SOEd. (05)
	Steve Cysewski, CRA (05)
	Michael Hannigan, CRA (04)
	Susan Herman, SOM (04)
	Joan Leguard, CLA (05), 
	Rainer Newberry, CSEM (04)
	William Schneider, CLA (04)
	Yuri Shur, CSEM (05)
	Eduard Zilberkant, CLA (04)

Faculty Affairs
	Mark Box, CLA (04)
	Karen Erickson, CLA (05)
	Bret Luick, CRA/CES (04)
	Jenifer McBeath, SALRM (04)
	Peter McRoy, SFOS (04)
	Dan Odess, CLA (04)
	Shirish Patil, SME (04)
	Jenifer Smith, CLA (05)
	Craig Wisen, SOM (05)

PERMANENT COMMITTEES

Core Review (Elected)
	Jin Brown, Communication, CLA (04)
	Derick Burleson, English, CLA (05)
	Jill Faudree, Math, CSEM (04)
	Mary Goodwin, Humanities, CLA (04)
	Paul McCarthy, Library
	Rainer Newberry, CSEM, Sciences (04) 
	Jonathan Rosenberg, Social Sciences, CLA (05)
	Doug Schamel, Education (04)

Developmental Studies Committee (Elected)
	Judy Atkinson, Interior-Aleutians, CRA (04)
	Jane Allen, Kuskokwim, CRA (05)
	Patty Baldwin, RSS 
	John Bruder, Bristol Bay, CRA (05)
	George Guthridge, Bristol Bay, CRA (05)
	Richard Carr, English, CLA (05)
	John Creed, Chukchi, CRA (04)
	Pat Doak, Sciences (05)
	Kathleen Gustafson, Math, CSEM (04)
	Cindy Hardy, TVC (04)
	Ron Illingworth, Devel. Studies, CRA (04)
	Wanda Martin, Advising Center 
	Joe Mason, Northwest, CRA (04)
	Jane Weber, TVC (04)

Faculty Appeals & Oversight Committee (Elected)
	Gang Chen, SME (04)
	Claudette Engblom-Bradley, SOEd. (04)
	Carol Gold, CLA (04)
	Robert Gorman, CES (05)
	Brian Himelbloom, SFOS (04)
	Allen Morotti, SOEd. (05)
	Paul Layer, CSEM (04)
	Brenda Norcross, SFOS (05)
	Michael Pippenger, SOM (05)
	Julie Riley, CRA/CES (04)
	Hank Wickmann, SOM (04)
	CLA (05)
	CSEM (05)
	SME (05)
	SNRAS (04)
	SNRAS (05)

Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement 
	Gerald Berman, CLA (04)
	Mike Davis, CRA (05)
	Lee Haugen, SOEd. (04), 
	John Kawula, Library 
	Paul McCarthy, CSEM (04)
	Joy Morrison, Faculty Development Office
	Mike Nakoneczny, CLA (05)
	Channon Price, CSEM 
	Larry Roberts, CRA (05)
	Tom Robinson, SOM  
	Shunpu Zhang, CSEM (04)

Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee 
	Abhijit Dandekar, SME (04)
	Mary Erhlander, CLA (04)
	Rolf Gradinger, SFOS (04)
	Meriam Karlsson, SNRAS (04)
	Zhongo (John) Ma, CSEM (04)
	Christa Mulder, CSEM (04)
	Maribeth Murray, CLA (04)
	Jennifer Reynolds, SFOS (05)
	CLA (04)

OTHER:

UAF Governance Coordinating Committee
	Abel Bult-Ito, President-Elect
	Pete Pinney, President

UAF Faculty Alliance Representatives
	Abel Bult-Ito, President-Elect
	Pete Pinney, President

ATTACHMENT 116/23
UAF Faculty Senate #116
May 5, 2003
SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to adopt the following calendar for 
its 2003-2004 meetings.

	EFFECTIVE:   	Immediately

	RATIONALE:  	Meetings have to be scheduled and the Wood 
		Center Carol Brown Ballroom reserved well in advance.

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

				UAF FACULTY SENATE
					2003-2004
				  Calendar of Meetings

Mtg. # 	Date   	Day    	Time    	Type

117     	9/22/03 	Monday	1:00 p.m.	audioconference

118     	10/27/03 	Monday	1:00 p.m.	face-to-face 

119     	12/8/03	Monday	1:00 p.m.	audioconference

120     	2/2/04	Monday	1:00 p.m.	audioconference

121   	3/1/04	Monday	1:00 p.m.	face-to-face

122    	4/5/04	Monday	1:00 p.m.	audioconference

123   	5/3/04	Monday	1:00 p.m.	face-to-face

Location:  Wood Center Carol Brown Ballroom 

ATTACHMENT 116/24
UAF Faculty Senate #116
May 5, 2003
SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to authorize the Administrative Committee to act on behalf of the Senate on all matters within its purview which may arise until the Senate resumes deliberations in the Fall of 2003.  Senators will be kept informed of the Administrative Committee's meetings and will be encouraged to attend and participate in these meetings.

	EFFECTIVE:   	May 5, 2003

	RATIONALE: 	This motion will allow the Administrative 
		Committee to act on behalf of the Senate so that 
		necessary work can be accomplished and will also allow 
		Senators their rights to participate in the governance 
		process.