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

For Audioconferencing:  Bridge #:  1-877-751-8040    (Passcode:  512265)
				Fairbanks:  474-8050  (Chair's Passcode:  802028)

A G E N D A
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #117
Monday, September 22, 2003
1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.
Wood Center Carol Brown Ballroom

1:00	I	Call to Order – Pete Pinney       			  5 Min.
		A.	Roll Call
		B.	Approval of Minutes to Meeting #115 & #116
		C.	Adoption of Agenda

1:05	II	Status of Chancellor's Office Actions 		  5 Min.
		A.	Motions Approved:
			1.	Motion to approve the Unit Criteria for the 
				School of Management.
			2.	Motion to amend the Reserving Courses for 
				Graduate Programs policy.
			3.	Motion to delete the Emergency Services 
				(formerly Fire Science) Certificate. 
			4.	Motion on mandatory placement policy.
			5.	Motion to approve a statement with the 
				IAS Student Evaluation package.
	B.	Motion Denied: 
		1.	Motion to approve a UAF Policy on Classified and 
			Proprietary Research.

1:10 	III	Public Comments/Questions 				  5 Min.

1:15	IV	Governance Reports
	A.	President's Comments - Pete Pinney  		  5 Min. 
	B.	President-elect's Report - Abel Bult-Ito    		  5 Min.
	C.	Staff Council - Rory O'Neill  				  5 Min.
	D.	ASUAF -Thom Walker / GSO -   	    		  5 Min.
	E.	Faculty Liaison - Eva Kopacz 				  5 Min. 

1:40	V	A.	Remarks by Chancellor M. Lind   		10 Min.
		B.	Remarks by Provost P. Reichardt		10 Min.
			Summary Report of 2002/2003 Faculty Reviews
			(Attachment 117/1)

	VI	Consent Agenda
	A.	Motion to confirm membership on the Ad Hoc 
		Committee on Unit Criteria (Attachment 117/2), 
		submitted by Administrative Committee

2:00	VII	New Business						10 Min.
	A.	Motion to amend the Academic Bankruptcy policy 
		(Attachment 117/3), submitted by Curricular Affairs
	B.	Motion to establish a Faculty Travel Committee 
		(Attachment 117/4), submitted by Faculty 
		Development, Assessment, & Improvement

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

2:20	VIII	Committee Reports 					15 Min.
	A.	Curricular Affairs - R. Newberry (Attachment 117/5)
	B.	Faculty Affairs - P. McRoy (Attachment 117/6)
	C.	Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee – C. Mulder
		(Attachment 117/7)
	D.	Core Review - D. Schamel
	E.	Curriculum Review - W. Schneider
	F.	Developmental Studies - J. Weber
	G.	Faculty Appeals & Oversight - P. Layer  (Attachment 117/8 
		& Attachment 117/9))
	H.	Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement – 
		P. McCarthy (Attachment 117/10)

2:35	IX	Discussion Items   					15 Min.
	A.	Outcomes Based Budgeting
		Guest Speaker - Paul Jenny, Associate Director, SW Budget & IR
		(References: 
		http://www.alaska.edu/swbudget/process/budgetprocess.html
		http://www.alaska.edu/bor/2009Plan/2009.html
		http://www.uaf.edu/chancellor/summit/)

2:50	X	Members' Comments/Questions			  5 Min.

3:00	XI	Adjournment

ATTACHMENT 117/1
UAF Faculty Senate #117
September 22, 2003

SUMMARY REPORT OF 2002/2003 FACULTY REVIEWS

Paul Reichardt

Promotion/Mandatory Tenure and Mandatory Tenure Only

6 files:  6 yes	
	yes at all stages of review for 4 files
	no at unit peer level, yes at all subsequent levels for one file 
	yes only at Chancellor’s level for one file*
	*additional information added to file in response to Provost’s recommendation

Promotion/Early Tenure and Early Tenure Only

18 files: 17 yes, one withdrawn
	16 yes at all stages of review
	1 no at campuswide committee level, yes at all other levels*
	*  additional information added to file in response to campuswide committee’s recommendation
		years before mandatory review	# files
			1			6
			2			6
			3			3
			4			3

Promotion

11 files:  9 yes,  2 no
  	yes at all stages of review for 6 files
	yes except campuswide committee for 2 files
	tie at unit level, no at campuswide level, yes at Provost and Chancellor level for 1 file
	no at all stages of review except unit peer for 2 files

Fourth Year Comprehensive Review (UNAC-represented faculty only)

15 files
	11 satisfactory progress at all stages of review
	1 unsatisfactory progress at all stages of review
	3 satisfactory progress at 3 of the 4 stages of review

Post-Tenure Review

No files submitted (nor required)

Summary

Files submitted by 34 faculty (29 represented by UNAC, 5 represent by ACCFT) and one administrator were reviewed in the promotion/tenure process.  Promotion and/or tenure was awarded in 32 cases.  Two promotion applications were declined, and one promotion/early tenure application was withdrawn.  In 26 of the 35 cases, the file received a positive recommendation/decision at all levels.

Observations:

a.	"Early" applications for promotion to Associate Professor and tenure continue to greatly outnumber applications during the mandatory year.  However, the majority of these applications were submitted just one or two years prior to the year of mandatory review.  These candidates were either Assistant Professors who had previously gone through Fourth Year Comprehensive Review or were Professors who applied immediately after hire.  It appears that the recommendations of the last year or two by the campuswide committee and the Provost have had an effect in that the number of "very early" tenure cases has declined, and virtually all of the early tenure candidates in 02/03 received unanimous (or nearly unanimous) support at all levels.
b.	Lack of appropriate unit criteria continues to be the most problematic part of our promotion/tenure process.  In the absence of such criteria, committees and administrators must rely on UAF criteria.  In practice, reviewers find this to be difficult; and disappointed candidates often find rationales based on the UAF criteria to be vague and hard to understand.
c.	Last year's campuswide committees did excellent jobs.  Neither I nor the Chancellor agreed with all their recommendations.  However, I believe that my practice (instituted several years ago) of discussing with the campuswide committee their recommendations in "difficult" cases has led to a better process and, hopefully, better decisions.
d.	There are some misunderstandings about the workloads of non-tenure track faculty (e.g., the perception that a research faculty member’s teaching record cannot be evaluated as part of his/her case for promotion).  All reviewers of files should be familiar with the relevant UAF policies and regulations (which charge deans and directors with determining which criteria apply to each of these faculty).
e.	It is gratifying to see the beneficial effects of our Faculty Development program acknowledged and described in faculty files, especially those from faculty undergoing Fourth Year Comprehensive Review.
f.	The attached memo to deans and directors is my attempt to address some problems and issues that have arisen over the past couple years.

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

September 4, 2003

TO:		Deans and Directors

FROM:	Paul Reichardt
		Provost

SUBJECT:	Some Things to Address in This Year's Promotion/Tenure Reviews

The following list summarizes my thoughts about ways in which we can improve on the promotion/tenure processes of the recent past.  Please share this memo with your faculty, especially department chairs and chairs of your unit peer committees.

1.	Any "promises" made by deans, directors or department chairs at time of hire should be addressed by both the candidate (in his/her file) and by reviewers (especially deans, directors, department chairs).
2.	The applicable UAF Faculty Policies and Regulations for the FY04 process are the 2002 version for faculty represented by UNAC and the 1997 version for faculty represented by ACCFT.
3.	Peer committees need clear written statements on size, identities of individual members, eligibility for membership, and procedures.  Then they need to strictly follow their rules.
4.	Unit level peer committees have the responsibility to carry out and report on an in-depth analysis of each candidate's performance.  Analysis, not data summary, should be their focus.  Examples might be:  analysis of IAS results to determine why "Dr. Smith" is a good teacher rather than statistical analysis of "average IAS score for entry number three"; analysis of multiple authorship and significance of "Dr. Smith's" key publications rather than simply reporting the number of peer-reviewed articles that Smith has published.
5.	Unit criteria supplement, but do not replace, UAF criteria.  Recommendations should be based upon explicitly cited criteria.
6.	Deans and directors should describe the process used to select the two external reviewers designated by the dean or director.  All reviewers of the file need to know if these two individuals were suggested by the candidate or chosen by another method.
7.	Units with their own unit criteria should ensure that they are current (see UAF Faculty Senate Regulation III.E at http://www.uaf.edu/provost/UnitPeerCriteria/UnitPeerCriteria.html before using them.  Units with unit criteria that need reaffirmation should start the Senate process for obtaining reaffirmation.
8.	Peer committees should carefully consider the recommendations written for faculty undergoing Fourth Year Comprehensive Review.  Highly supportive letters from peer committees to these candidates almost certainly elicit promotion/tenure applications from those individuals in the following year.  This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but committees need to be aware of the phenomenon as they determine the tone of the letter to a junior faculty member who is doing well.

ATTACHMENT 117/2
UAF Faculty Senate #117
september 22, 2003
SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE

MOTION:
======

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

	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately

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

AD HOC COMMITTEE ON UNIT CRITERIA

Curricular Affairs - Jeannette Smith
Faculty Affairs - Dan Odess 
Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement - Shunpu Zhang
Faculty Appeals & Oversight - Julie Riley

ATTACHMENT 117/3
UAF Faculty Senate #117
September 22, 2003
SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS

MOTION:  
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the "Academic Bankruptcy for Returning Students" policy (Pg. 13-14, 2003-04 Catalog) as follows:

CAPS = additions
[[  ]]  = deletions

[[Academic Bankruptcy]] FRESH START for Returning Students

If you performed at an academic level that made you ineligible to continue your studies at UAF and dropped out or were dismissed from school, [[academic bankruptcy]] FRESH START can offer you a new undergraduate [[start]] BEGINNING.  You may apply for readmission on the basis that your prior academic record be disregarded.  You begin your college study again with no credits attempted, no credits earned and no quality points reflected in subsequent grade point average calculations.  You may use [[academic bankruptcy]] FRESH START only once.	

To declare [[academic bankruptcy]] FRESH START, you must submit an Application for [[Academic Bankruptcy]] FRESH START form.  Before applying for admission on this basis, at least two years must have elapsed since the end of the last full-time semester you attended.  [[Academic bankruptcy]] FRESH START application forms are available at the Admissions [[or Registrar's]] office.  DISCUSSING THIS OPTION WITH AN ACADEMIC ADVISOR IS RECOMMENDED SHOULD OTHER COURSES OF ACTION BE APPROPRIATE.

Your prior academic record remains a part of your overall academic record and appears on your transcript, but none of the credits you earned previously can be used in your new program.  The only time these credits will be included in GPA calculations is for graduation with honors (See Graduation with Honors).  [[You may be allowed advanced standing or a waiver of requirements just as any non-bankrupt student, but you won't be allowed credit by examination for courses lost in bankruptcy]].

EFFECTIVE:  	Fall 2004

RATIONALE: 	The faculty committee who participated and 
	developed the Early Warning Program made several 
	recommendations for improving or simplifying terms and 
	procedures for UAF students.  The intent with this motion is 
	to provide a more positive framework for a process that is 
	currently in place and support the "paradigm shift from a 
	punitive approach to customer service modality that 
	incorporates a commitment to developing a personal connection 
	to the student."

ATTACHMENT 117/4
UAF Faculty Senate #117
september 22, 2003
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY DEVELOPMENT, ASSESSMENT, & IMPROVEMENT

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate, upon recommendation of the Faculty Development, Assessment, and Improvement Committee, moves to establish a Faculty Travel Committee.  This committee will assist the Office of Faculty Development in the evaluation of faculty development travel funding requests, and will be charged with setting the procedures for submitting requests and the criteria for evaluating requests.

	EFFECTIVE:      Immediately

	RATIONALE:      Currently, faculty development travel requests 
		are submitted to the Office of Faculty Development on 
		an ad hoc basis and reviewed on a case-by-case basis.  
		This is a very cumbersome process for the Office of 
		Faculty Development Director and also does not allow for 
		careful planning of the budget.  This motion establishes 
		a Faculty Travel Committee, which will set rules for 
		submissions of travel funding requests, set guidelines by 
		which those requests will be reviewed, and assist the 
		Office of Faculty Development in the review of those 
		requests.

ATTACHMENT 117/5
UAF Faculty Senate #117
September 22, 2003
SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS

Minutes of the Curricular Affairs Committee
September 5,  12:30-1:30 , CCR

Present:  Carol A Barnhardt, Eduard Zilberkant, Jeannette Smith, Mario Kupries, Rainer Newberry, Stephen Cysewski, Susan Herman, William Schneider, Gayle Gregory, Wanda Martin, and Pete Pinney

1.  Rainer Newberry was elected chair almost unanimously.

2.  Meetings were set for alternate Mondays at 1pm   3pm   2 pm in Wood Center Conference Room "B".

3.  Bill Schneider graciously agreed to serve as Curriculum Review Chair.

4.  Jeannette Smith (after some soul-searching) graciously agreed to serve on the Ad Hoc Unit Criteria Committee.

5.  Bill Schneider asked 'where is our student representative?' and agreed to make contact with ASUAF to get one.

6.  The committee unanimously approved the request for DOD Firefighter Certification to be transferable as FIRE 207.

7.  The committee unanimously approved the request for Alaska Paramedic License/ National Registry Paramedic Certification to be transferable to UAF as EMS 180, 182, 186, 271, 275, 277, and 283, for a total of 48 credits.

8.  The issue of Syllabi Template was raised and Susan Herman kindly volunteered to email some materials on syllabi from the SOM to Committee members.  The issue will be addressed at the next meeting.

9.  The issue of the Bachelor of Technology degree was raised.  Steve Cysewski strongly requested that this committee not recommend to kill the program as TVC was planning serious improvements/changes in the program soon.  The committee agreed to a no-kill zone for BT.

10.  The issue of tightening up the language for excused absences was raised, as per the Provost's letter to the Faculty Senate.  The committee asked 'is this a problem' and decided to revisit the issue when someone thinks it is.

11.  Pete Pinney brought up a request to change/clarify how semester honors are calculated.  He agreed to send a draft wording to the committee for its advice and consent.

Next meeting to be held Monday, Sept. 15, 2 p.m.

ATTACHMENT 117/6
UAF Faculty Senate #117
september 22, 2003
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY AFFAIRS

FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE REPORT

Tuesday,  02 September 2003
Room 122,  NSF,  2-3:15 PM

Committee Members Present:  
Mark Box, CLA
Karen Erickson, CLA
Joan Leguard, CLA
Peter McRoy, SFOS (Chair)
Shirish Patil, SME
Craig Wisen, SOM
Roger Smith, GI
Pete Pinney, Senate President (ex officio)

Committee Members Away:
Bret Luick, CES
Jennifer McBeath, SALARM
Dan Odess, CLA

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

1.	Spouse Appointment Policy 
This policy was nearly ready for the Senate last semester but ran into last minute difficulties with the AA/EO.  The committee will seek further information of AA/EO to decide the fate of the policy.

2.	Classified Research 
Pete Pinney  reported that the Policy on Classified and Proprietary Research has been on the desk of attorney Hostina for the summer and awaits a decision.  There are three options.  One is to have the chancellor allow it to become policy after the thirty-day period.  The other is to have him veto the policy and begin the reconciliation process.  The third is to grant another extension.  Everything goes in thirty day cycles except for the reconciliation policy, which has no dates attached.  An extension until 15 September is likely after which the policy will be returned to Faculty Affairs for the week before the full Senate meeting on 22 September.

3.	Parking & the Master Planning Committee
Last year the Master Planning Committee created a subcommittee on parking.  The committee is chaired by Shirish Patil who reported that the report of the new planning consultants will soon be available (see Attachment 1).  The FA Committee discussed the West Ridge construction and many of the problems associated with that project were aired.  A general question was raised as to whether the Master Planning Committee is responsive to comments and needs of faculty, staff and students.  Does the parking subcommittee deal with operations as well as planning?  Should they?  What is the relationship between the Faculty Senate and the Master Planning Committee?  These issues will be on the agenda for Faculty Affairs.

4.	Unit Criteria 
Dan Odess will continue serving as the FA representative on the Unit Criteria Committee.

5.	Budget Liaison
Craig Wisen has been appointed by President Pinney to be budget liaison for this academic year.  Faculty Affairs will continue to pursue ways for the Senate to be more involved in the budget process.

New Business

6.	UAF Budget Outcomes-Based Budgeting 
President Pinney has given this proposal from the statewide administration a very high priority. Faculty were not involved in the initial process but after some negotiation by the Faculty Alliance  the procedures will be  revised to include faculty opinion. A statement from President Pinney will be forthcoming.

7.	Emeritus Qualification
Procedures regarding appointment of emeriti faculty are again an issue.  The provost asks should there be a time limit on appointments after retirement, i.e. a sunset on eligibility for appointment?  Also current policy allows active or retired faculty to nominate emeriti.  Should at least some of the nominees be active faculty?  These issues will be reviewed by Faculty Affairs.

8.	Fast Track Tenure issue
The provost also notes that procedures for fast track tenure appointments for new hires have raised some questions.  Faculty Affairs will review this issue for clarification and/or policy change. 

Submitted by Peter McRoy

Attachment 1:
Report of the Subcommittee on Parking / submitted by Shirish Patil
The purpose of the Circulation and Parking Plan is to provide additional guidance toward implementing the transportation related items in the Master Plan.  To this end, UAF formed the Circulation and Parking Subcommittee (CPS) to identify specific issues and mitigation measures to address near-term and long-term needs related to pedestrians and bicycles, the UAF shuttle system, motor vehicle circulation, and the parking system.  As such, this project required technical data collection and analysis, as well as a qualitative review of the issues and potential improvements.  CPS hired a team of consultants (consultant team was selected from seven proposals that were submitted to UAF as a response to RFP) to provide expertise in the areas of transportation planning, traffic engineering, economics and finance, and landscape architecture.  A public involvement process was undertaken, which included two public meetings and an on-line survey posted on the UAF web site.  Additional comments were taken directly by members of the CPS.  Implementation actions were evaluated for both technical soundness and appropriateness for the character and goals of the campus community.  The resulting Plan includes a wide range of measures to improve circulation and parking throughout the UAF campus.  It also includes a range of strategies, from significant infrastructure changes to pedestrian enhancements to modified parking management measures.  Many of the measures are tied to existing campus plans, such as the completing Tanana Loop, constructing Thompson Drive, as well as to building sites identified for future development.  In addition, changes to the existing parking permit system are identified to optimize use of existing facilities.  The major recommendations are summarized in the Final Report.  The final report should be available on the web after all revisions are made (I expect that to happen sometime late September).

Way Forward:

The tentative plan for the Public Meeting for CPS Final Plan with KAI is as below (pending confirmation for date from KAI):

CPS will hold a public meeting on Monday, Sept 29.  There will be two meetings, both at the Wood Center (a morning one, 9-12am time frame and an evening one from 6-9pm time frame).  Each meeting will be for no more than two hours.  The plan is to have a formal presentation of the plan (power point) by KAI in the first half hour in the Wood Center Ball Room (NO question/answer session) to educate the constituents about the plan, followed by an display open meeting in Wood Center ground level area.  Same format will be repeated in the evening.

The announcements regarding the meetings will appear in Sept 19 Cornerstone, Daily News Miner, Sun Star and campus wide e-mails to Deans and Directors.

CPS will put up a web feedback form with a new email address for the campus/community feedback on the report and public meeting.

Both sessions are scheduled as on campus events due to poor show at the Noel Wien Library during last open house.

ATTACHMENT 117/7
UAF Faculty Senate #117
September 22, 2003
SUBMITTED BY
Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee Meeting, 
Sept. 3 2003, 1 pm-1:45 p.m.

Present:  C. Koverola, C. Mulder, D. Reynolds, D. Stephens, M. Ehrlander, M. Hogan, M. Murray, S. Henrichs, J. Ma, G. Gregory, C. McAlpin, R. Nicholson, R. Gradinger, A. Dandekar.

1.	Christa Mulder was elected the chair for 2003-2004.

2.	A regular meeting time was set for Fridays 3:30 p.m.

3.	We briefly discussed three items brought up by the Graduate School as issues the GAAC should look into in the coming year:
a.	Tuition waivers for graduate school.  Susan Henrichs explained that currently there are no limitations on what courses graduate students can sign up for when they receive a tuition waiver.  Sometimes these courses are clearly not relevant to the student’s degree program, and this results in a cost to the university.  Several methods for restricting waivers to relevant courses were discussed.
b.	Program policies on maintaining status in the graduate program.  We will be examining CSEM's draft policy at a future meeting.
c.	Discrepancies between individual programs in the requirements for 698:  6 credits (catalog) vs. 3-6 credits (a number of programs).  

All three items were tabled for more extensive discussion until the following meeting, to be held on Sept. 19.

ATTACHMENT 117/8
UAF Faculty Senate #117
September 22, 2003
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY APPEALS & OVERSIGHT

On May 14, 2003, the Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee met with Chancellor Marshall Lind and Dr. Eduard Zilberkant, Chair of the ad-hoc committee for Provost Review.  FAOC members present were Paul Layer (chair), Carol Gold, and Larry Duffy (there were problems with the bridge so we could not contact remote sites).  The meeting convened at 2:00 PM.  Chancellor Lind summarized his evaluation of the Provost.  It was his impression that the ad-hoc committee report highlighted many of the strengths and weaknesses of the Provost and his report echoed these points.  The Chancellor and the Provost have met and will continue to meet to take steps to address the issues raised.  The meeting adjourned at approximately 2:30 PM.  The FAOC would like to thank Dr. Zilberkant and the other members of the ad-hoc committee for their work.  This concludes the administrator review process for the 2002-2003 academic year.

ATTACHMENT 117/9
UAF Faculty Senate #117
September 22, 2003
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY APPEALS & OVERSIGHT

Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee Report

Meeting Date:  September 3, 2003

Present (in person or by teleconference):
Carol Gold, Robert Gorman, Brian Himelbloom, Paul Layer, Allan Morotti,
Brenda Norcross, Mike Pippenger, Julie Riley

Notes:

Paul Layer was elected committee chair
Julie Riley was elected to serve on the ad-hoc committee for Unit Criteria

The committee then discussed plans for the upcoming year:

1.  The committee discussed the process for Group B administrator review.  This year Doug Kane, Roger Smith, Aldona Jonaitis, Clara Johnson and Tony Nakazawa are up for review.  At the next meeting we will select chairs for each review committee and set up a review process.  Dean Collins is up for Group A administrative review, and members of the committee will be asked by the Provost to serve on that ad hoc committee.

2.  The chair discussed the issues regarding grade appeals policy time-line concerns and student code of conduct violation questions.  Each committee member will review current policy so that we can discuss it at the next meeting.

3.  The chair discussed the excused absence policy and requested that committee members familiarize themselves with the current policy.  We will work on language for a change to the catalog.

The next meeting will be on Monday afternoon, October 6 at 1:30 in the Rasmuson Library, Room 341.  

ATTACHMENT 117/10
UAF Faculty Senate #117
september 22, 2003
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY DEVELOPMENT, ASSESSMENT & IMPROVEMENT

Minutes of Faculty Development, Assessment, and Improvement Committee Meeting
Wednesday, 3 September 2003 / 3:30 p.m.
Office of Faculty Development, 222 Bunnell

Committee Members Present:  Gerald Berman, Lee Haugen, John Kawula, Paul McCarthy, Joy Morrison, Michael Nakaneczny, Channon Price, Larry Roberts, E. Thomas Robinson, Shunpu Zhang

Committee Members Absent:  Mike Davis, Brian Barnes, Roger Norris-Tull

Guests present:  Pete Pinney

1.   Paul McCarthy was elected to serve as Chair of the committee for this academic year.

2.   The committee agreed to a regular meeting time (8:30-9:30 am, Thursday) and scheduled the next meeting for Thursday, 25 September at 8:30 am in 222 Bunnell (Office of Faculty Development).

3.   Shunpu Zhang agreed to serve on the Senate's ad hoc committee on unit criteria.

4.   Joy Morrison updated the committee on this year's orientation schedule for new faculty, the list of faculty development training workshops, and the faculty development web site.  She also indicated to the committee that the Faculty Development Office has a budget of ~52K this year.  This level of funds is reduced from previous years which means that fewer funds may be available for faculty travel than in past years.

5.   Joy Morrison reiterated the difficulty that she is having dealing with individual faculty travel requests and asked that the committee establish a faculty travel policy.  A subcommittee on faculty travel was established last year and a series of recommendations were sent to the full Senate last spring.  The Senate suggested that the committee submit a more general policy for Senate approval.  A new subcommittee on faculty travel policy, consisting of Gerald Berman, Channon Price, Lee Haugen and Shunpu Zhang, was established to work with the travel policy devised by the subcommittee last year and develop a more general document that could be sent to the full Senate for approval as soon as possible.

6.   Joy Morrison indicated that she would be attending the POD (Professional & Organizational Development) Conference in Denver on October 8-12 and requested a volunteer from the committee to join her in attending that meeting. 

7.   The committee discussed past work on IAS forms.  Tom Robinson suggested that Hild Peters be invited to serve on the committee, as she was a member in past years.  Her attendance would allow interaction in the important area of instructional assessment.  Joy Morrison noted that Hild Peters has included a form in the IAS packets that better explains their role to students and faculty, but that that is unlikely to be sufficient to deal with concerns raised by Jordan Titus last year.  

8.   It was noted that Susan Henrichs is responsible for outcomes assessment.  Joy Morrison asked Pete Pinney if he would ask Susan to join our committee since we oversee policy on Faculty Assessment also.

9.   The meeting was adjourned at 4:20 p.m.