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 #122
Monday, April 5, 2004
1:00 p.m. - 3:15 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 #121
		C.	Adoption of Agenda

1:05	II	Status of Chancellor's Office Actions 		  5 Min.
	A.	Motions Approved:
		1.	Motion to amend the Faculty Senate Section 3, 
			(Article V, Committee, Permanent) of the Bylaws 
			to establish a "Committee on the Status of Women."  
	B.	Motions Pending:  
		2.	Motion to approve a B.A. in Child Development 
			and Family Studies.

1:10 	III	Public Comments/Questions 				  5 Min.
	A.	Jacquie Goss - Sustainable Campus Initiatives 

1:15	IV	Governance Reports					25 Min. 
	A.	President's Comments - Pete Pinney   
	B.	President-elect's Report - Abel Bult-Ito (Attachment 122/1)
	C.	Staff Council - Rory O'Neill  
	D.	ASUAF -Thom Walker / GSO -   
	E.	Faculty Liaison - Eva Kopacz 

1:40	V	A.	Remarks by Chancellor M. Lind   		10 Min.
		B.	Remarks by Provost P. Reichardt		10 Min.
			(Attachment 122/2)

2:00	VI	Old Business						15 Min. 
	A.	Motion on classified research policy, submitted by 
		Faculty Affairs (Attachment 122/3)
	B.	Resolution on Parking, submitted by Faculty Affairs
		(Attachment 122/4)

2:15	VII	New Business						30 Min.
	A.	Motion to amend Section 3 (Article V, Committees,
		E. Standing) of the Bylaws to establish a standing 
		"Unit Criteria Committee", submitted by the Ad Hoc 
		Committee on Unit Criteria (Attachment 122/5)
	B.	Motion to approve the Unit Criteria for Anthropology, 
		submitted by the Ad Hoc Committee on Unit Criteria 
		(Attachment 122/6)
	C.	Motion to approve the Unit Criteria for the Science 
		and Engineering units of CSEM, submitted by the 
		Ad Hoc Committee on Unit Criteria (Attachment 122/7)
	D.	Resolution for the UAF Rifle team (Attachment 122/8)
	E.	Confirmation of Outstanding Senator of the Year Award, 
		submitted by OSYA Screening Committee (Attachment 122/9)
	F.	Nomination & Election for President-Elect (Attachment 122/10)

2:45		***BREAK***						10 Min

2:55	VIII	Committee Reports 					15 Min.
	A.	Curricular Affairs - R. Newberry (Attachment 122/11)
	B.	Faculty Affairs - P. McRoy(Attachment 122/12)
	C.	Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee – C. Mulder
	D.	Core Review - D. Schamel
	E.	Curriculum Review - W. Schneider
	F.	Developmental Studies - J. Weber (Attachment 122/13)
	G.	Faculty Appeals & Oversight - P. Layer  
	H.	Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement – 
		P. McCarthy (Attachment 122/14)
	G.	Ad Hoc Committee on Unit Criteria - D. Odess 

3:10	IX	Discussion Items   					  5 Min.

3:15	X	Members' Comments/Questions			  5 Min.

3:20	XI	Adjournment

ATTACHMENT 122/1
UAF Faculty Senate #122
APRIL 5, 2004

PRESIDENT-ELECT COMMUNICATION 

I communicated with Pat Pitney and relayed to her comments that were made at meeting #121 related to my outcomes based budgeting targets report.  I have included my correspondence as well as Pat Pitney's responses.  Please be prepared to discuss this information during my president-elect comment period.  It appears that I am unable to get my points across and I need some guidance as to how to proceed.  

Abel

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

Email sent to Pat Pitney on 12 March 2004:

Dear Pat,

I have attached my president-elect comments and the analysis of your 19 February 2004 memo on the FY09 targets for the 5 outcomes measures, which I presented at the 1 March 2004 Faculty Senate meeting. Senators had several responses to my report and I would like to communicate the most important ones to you and hope that you will consider these seriously.

1. The focus of the outcomes measures should be on quality, not on quantity.  The current measures only deal with quantity.

2. The mindset behind the outcomes-based budgeting process appears to contain elements that are simply unsustainable.

3. Probably most importantly, a senator suggested that you include a price tag to realize the targets you will ultimately present to the Board of Regents.  This includes the costs to realize the increased enrollments and high demand programs output, such as the need for additional faculty lines, teaching resources, and class room space, i.e., capital projects.  In addition, to realize the increased research output, additional faculty lines, research resources and infrastructure, and laboratory space, i.e., capital projects will be required.  The idea that you would be able to accommodate these types of increases with current resources is unrealistic.  Most of the faculty are already working a lot more than they are compensated for and increasing their workload even more is not an option.  In addition, even with the addition of the WRRB building, laboratory/research space remains a limiting factor at UAF.

4. I do not think that I am incorrect to say that most senators where stunned to learn how much more UAF is expected to increase in 4 of the 5 measures compared to the other MAUs.  I would like to request that you explain to the faculty what your rationale is for this disproportionate burden on UAF at your earliest convenience.  I realize that these targets are still in draft form at the present time, but as soon as they are presented to the Board of Regents they will set expectations for UAF that are unattainable and therefore they would set UAF up for failure.

5. A senator commented that the current unemployment rate in Alaska is close to 9%, which probably explains the record enrollment at UA this academic year.  This comment is in line with an analysis on enrollment and unemployment rates in Alaska that was published in the Faculty Senate Newsletter 3(2), 5 December 2003, which showed that over 60% of the variance in enrollment could be explained by unemployment rates.  Lets hope the Alaskan economy will pick up soon, but this may inevitably result in declining enrollments.  This reality does not appear to be part of the equation to establish realistic targets for the 5 measures proposed.

Thank you and I am looking forward to your response, which I will communicate to the faculty.

Abel Bult-Ito

Cc: UAF Faculty, Faculty Alliance

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

Email response from Pat Piney received 12 March 2004:

Abel,

The questions are all valid and I will spend time next week putting together a complete response which I plan to have done and to you by a week from Monday.  As to the first question, I agree that these first five measures focus on quantity.  I however can easily argue that student retention has a quality focus and that research $'s has a quality focus if we narrow in on just competitive grants.  Using suggestions from you and the faculty alliance, I expect that the second phase of outcomes will have a more qualitative focus.  The UAA approach to an initial quality measures seems to be workable - they look at the number of academic/  Instructional programs that: 1.  Have a formal/written plan (1 point); 2. Act in accordance with their own plan (2 points); 3. Regularly assess their own performance relative to their plan (3 points); and 4. Revise their plan based on the assessment (4 points).  I would suggest adding one more point - if the plan clearly shows how the program's plan links/contributes to one or more of the systems outcomes it would receive an additional 1 point.  This approach leaves the quality control at the faculty level and is consistent with accrediting agency requirements.  This approach could also be expanded to other non-academic/administrative departments.

As far as UAF's targets for FY05 - please be sure to pass on the faculty comments to Chancellor Lind.  With the directions sent out Feb 19, 2004 and informed by your comments and additional input from UAF leaders, the Chancellor will propose FY05 targets and FY09 goals for UAF to the President by April 15, 2004.  The price tag on the expected outcomes will be clearly noted on the target/goals page.  For the out-years goals are used in place of targets. Goals are used to denote more flexibly and uncertainty based on evolving conditions.  Oh, and by the way, no one will be held accountable for meeting a target if the assumed resources are cut, targets will be adjusted/restated given actual fiscal conditions.  As you know we'll be testing the measures and targets through FY05 - a success worthy of reward/or failure worthy of consequence for outcomes in FY05 will likely be the degree to which the campus has embraced and communicated the performance measures and has integrated them into its planning processes from the Chancellor level down to the department level.  It will be at least FY06 - maybe even FY07 before significant rewards for achieving target and/or consequences for lack of achievement will be implemented.  This step comes after we establish and test processes, measures, and targets.

One more related note, UAF is the flagship and is treated as such in budget comparisons.  When UAF puts its targets together it should look at other flagship and research universities for what are reasonable targets/performance levels - not at the other UA campuses.

Pat

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

Email response from Pat Piney received 22 March 2004:

Abel, 

Back to my response to the statements from you and the UAF Faculty Senate.  For clarity, I have copied your statements numbered 1 to 5 and provided a response to each one. 

1. The focus of the outcome measures should be on quality, not on quantity. The current measures only deal with quantity. 

---I agree that these first five measures focus on quantity.  I, however, can easily argue that student retention has a quality focus and that research $'s has a quality focus if we narrow in on just competitive grants.  Using suggestions from you, faculty alliance and others involved, I expect that the second phase of outcomes will have a more quality level focus.  The UAA approach to an initial quality measure seems to be workable - they look at the number of academic/ instructional programs that:  1. Have a formal/written plan (1 point); 2. Act in accordance with their own plan (2 points); 3. Regularly assess their own performance relative to their plan (3 points); and 4. Revise their plan based on the assessment (4 points).  I would suggest adding one more point - if the plan clearly shows how the program's plan links/contributes to one or more of the systems outcomes it would receive an additional 1 point. 

---In addition to the UAA approach to quality measurement here are several ideas forwarded in Dec. 2003 by the UA Faculty Alliance: 
-Student satisfaction with counseling, advising, and career development services 
-Student credit hours attempted versus earned of those who make it past the ìWî 
-Administrative/Staff Effectiveness and Alignment 
-Number of programs conducting outcomes assessment 
-Quality educational experience - Number of students involved in service learning, internships, practicums, externships, funded research, capstone experiences 
- Institutional Quality using faculty teaching (satisfaction/student success etc.) as a measure 
-Institutional Quality using faculty scholarly activity - Number of peer-reviewed publications, juried awards and number of recitals or productions, books, citations etc. 

2. The mindset behind the outcomes-based budgeting process appears to contain elements that are simply unsustainable. 

---The process is something that will gradually evolve to be part of the way UA operates.  Just like addressing tuition rates or capital needs each year, UA, from the system level, will address performance.  A dean or department head manages his/her budget regularly, as this process evolves each will be actively managing performance on applicable measures.  This will be a culture shift and one that is absolutely necessary for every University.  UA (unlike many public university systems) is lucky that the State has accepted that the Board of Regents is mandating the move to performance measures/outcomes, otherwise our performance measures and targets would be built on state government standards rather than through this inclusive (and from the state's perspective very slow) process. 

---In terms of our current tasks, I believe it will take considerable time moving from the existing 5 to a suite of 20 measures.  We (collectively) might decide 20 measures are too many and we want to identify only another 6 or 7?  This is a topic I would appreciate faculty feedback on.  I also believe the President, Chancellors and Board would be flexible and accept 11 or 12 instead of the original goal of 20 measures. 

3. Probably most importantly, a senator suggested that you include a price tag to realize the targets you will ultimately present to the Board of Regents.  This includes the costs to realize the increased enrollments and high demand programs output, such as the need for additional faculty lines, teaching resources, and class room space, i.e., capital projects.  In addition, to realize the increased research output, additional faculty lines, research resources and infrastructure, and laboratory space, i.e., capital projects will be required.  The idea that you would be able to accommodate these types of increases with current resources is unrealistic.  Most of the faculty are already working a lot more than they are compensated for and increasing their workload even more is not an option.  In addition, even with the addition of the WRRB building, laboratory/research space remains a limiting factor at UAF. 

---The price tag on the expected outcomes will be clearly noted on the target/goals page from here on.  For the out-years goals are used in place of targets. Goals are used to denote more flexibly and uncertainty based on evolving conditions.  I believe that the "price tag" is the least understood component in developing the FY05 targets and FY09 goals.  It is also, the component that drives most if not all of the difference in targets recommended by Budget & IR and that proposed by faculty.  For instance, in all case I expect success in garnering full state funding FY05-FY09 and have recommended targets on such assumptions.  Faculty/ staff/administrators will not be held accountable for meeting a target if the assumed resources are not available, targets will be adjusted/ restated given actual fiscal conditions.  However, by clearly stating the cost of reaching a particular target/goal the various needs and immediate constraints are identified.  And, by identifying the end results for which we are striving, with their associated costs, prioritizing in times of constraint becomes a proactive rather than reactive exercise.  There is no doubt, however that more effective utilization of resources will be required to meet some goals.  I'll address this more in the response to your next statement. 

4.  I do not think that I am incorrect to say that most senators where stunned to learn how much more UAF is expected to increase in 4 of the 5 measures compared to the other MAUs.  I would like to request that you explain to the faculty what your rationale is for this disproportionate burden on UAF at your earliest convenience.  I realize that these targets are still in draft form at the present time, but as soon as they are presented to the Board of Regents they will set expectations for UAF that are unattainable and therefore they would set UAF up for failure. 

---First, keep in mind, that the decision on targets and goals for UAF will be based on those proposed by Chancellor Lind.  Be sure to communicate the senate's concerns to him.  President Hamilton may negotiate on a particular target level or goal before accepting it, however this last step is a campus decision.  These will not be presented to the Board until President Hamilton and Chancellor Lind agree.  What will go to the Board will be in context of the "UA System."  Also understand, from a system perspective, we'll begin managing and planning using those agreed upon MAU's targets and goals. 

---Second, we (all of us) are in the testing phase for the selected measures and targets through, at least, FY05.  Thus, a success worthy of reward, (or failure worthy of consequence) for results in FY05 will likely be the degree to which the campus has embraced and communicated the performance measures and has integrated them into its planning processes from the Chancellor level down to the department level.  It will be at least FY06 - maybe even FY07, before significant rewards for achieving targets and/or consequences for lack of achievement will be implemented.  And remember, not reaching a particular target is not a reason for imposing a consequence, however, it is reason to ask why.  After the question of "why?" is answered, reasonable people will make determinations.  One of the more valuable aspects of this process, is a means for each audience (faculty, staff, administrators, Board) to have some common areas of understanding and communicating expectations. 

---Third, in terms of comparable levels of state resources invested and UAF mission distinction from UAA and UAS, in general and by design, UAF has a larger burden and larger responsibility for the success of this system. 

---Last, and most important, UAF and all the MAUs should plan for success, thus setting MAU targets and especially MAU goals at levels indicative of high quality and best practice relative to peer institutions.  Planning decision will be made on the targets and goals.  If UAF is looking for little growth in student enrollment, faculty and staff levels will be managed accordingly. 
-----A couple of overly simple but instructive planning examples are shown below: 
-If UAF is looking for little growth in student enrollment, faculty and staff levels will be planned accordingly.  For example, currently, Fairbanks main campus has 10% more (unrestricted budgeted) instruction regular faculty now compared to 1995, however, collectively these faculty are teaching 20% fewer student FTE, additionally more than half of Fairbanks main campus class sections have fewer than 10 students enrolled and UAF reports class room utilization is very low.  UAF relative to its peer institutions (see list below) also has significantly lower student faculty ratios.  Therefore, it may be reasonable that the amount of student growth can be handled within the existing level of regular faculty and their existing course assignments (albeit some internal reallocations would likely be necessary).  There is no question, small classes are an important advantage, but, UAF could increase average class size by one third and still have the lowest average around. 
-If UAF plans for a 2% annual growth in research grants, then non-discretionary cost increases which average about 4% (~10% with the WRRB payments) that have been covered on increased research revenue will shift to unrestricted funding sources.  Therefore, to maintain the same level of resources on research, the state funding for maintaining other existing activity would have to be redirected to research operations thus reducing some other area.  Keep these kinds of examples in mind as you look at the various targets and especially FY09 goals. 

5. A senator commented that the current unemployment rate in Alaska is close to 9%, which probably explains the record enrollment at UA this academic year.  This comment is in line with an analysis on enrollment and unemployment rates in Alaska that was published in the Faculty Senate Newsletter 3(2), 5 December 2003, which showed that over 60% of the variance in enrollment could be explained by unemployment rates.  Lets hope the Alaskan economy will pick up soon, but this may inevitably result in declining enrollments.  This reality does not appear to be part of the equation to establish realistic targets for the 5 measures proposed. 

--- I believe that unemployment does spur enrollment, and UA is preparing for even higher unemployment given the status of the state fiscal issues.  However, I believe current enrollment trends are only coincidentally explained by unemployment, because almost all of the enrollment change at Fairbanks campus is due to recent high-school graduates and graduate students.  Unlike, adult part-time undergraduate students, these two groups don't react as directly to unemployment rates.  In terms of the system-wide enrollment, recent high-school graduates were the largest single market increase.  Do notice on the graph referenced, that UA's highest and nearly lowest enrollments were observed at the same unemployment rate.  TVC, and CRA, I believe have benefited by unemployment levels and programs directed specifically to workforce demands and partnerships - these enrollments are sustainable and growth can continue. 

Feel free to share this response to others in the Faculty Senate.  And, remember to address any specifics on targets and goals to Chancellor Lind.  As I receive input I will also forward it.  Thanks 

Pat

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

Email response from Pat Piney received 23 March 2004:

Abel, 

I forgot to list the peers in the last message - here they are. 
· Clemson University 
· Cornell University-NY State Statutory Colleges 
· Georgia Institute of Technology Main Campus 
· Idaho State University 
· Kansas State University of Agriculture and Applied Science 
· Michigan Technological University 
· Montana State University-Bozeman 
· New Mexico Institute of Mining & Technology 
· North Dakota State University Main Campus 
· Northern Arizona University 
· Oregon State University 
· SUNY at Binghamton 
· SUNY at Stony Brook 
· The University of Montana-Missoula 
· UN of Arkansas Little Rock 
· University of Akron 
· University of Delaware 
· University of Idaho 
· University of Maine 
· University of Missouri-Rolla 
· University of Montana-Missoula 
· University of Nevada-Reno 
· University of North Dakota 
· University of Oklahoma Norman Campus 
· University of Wyoming 
· Utah State University 
· Wichita State University 

Pat

ATTACHMENT 122/2
UAF Faculty Senate #122
April 5, 2004

ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
Schools and Colleges
03/24/04 (Draft)

Productivity

1.	SCH/FTEF(a)
2.	# Majors(b)/FTEF
3.	# Graduates(b)/FTEF
4.	Grant and Contract expenditure $/FTEF
5.	# Professional Products(c)/FTEF

(a)FTEF = # Regular Faculty FTEF + # Adjunct and Overload FTEF (3 Adjunct = 1 FTEF); Faculty = # Full-time Faculty
(b)0.25 x #Certificates + 0.5 x #Associates + # Baccalaureates + # Licensure (Ed) + 2 x  # Masters + 5 x #Ph.D.; # majors will be determined by Fall enrollments except for graduate students where #majors will be the sum of all majors enrolled in at least one term (Fall, Spring, Summer)
(c)sum of professional publications, presentations, performances

Quality

1.	% Programs with active outcomes assessment
2.	IAS mean score for "Average of items 1-4"
3.	Promotion/Tenure candidate ratings(e) from past three years
4.	% Last Year's Grads employed in positions related to their degrees or pursuing other degrees
5.	# Faculty with state, national, and international professional service positions/Faculty(a)
6.	Each Dean/Director will submit a one-page paper that describes the quality of his/her unit.	

(e)Average of campuswide promotion/tenure committee evaluation of candidates (E/VG/G/S/U scoring in teaching, research, service) assigned on a 1-5 scale.  (Since this analysis will not contain data from most CRA faculty, we will have to figure out how to deal with CRA relative to this criterion).

Centrality(e)

1.	% of  unit effort directed to each of the following areas:

A.      Alaska's Economic and Workforce Development
B.      Environment and Human Health
C.      Circumpolar North
D.	Alaska Native Issues and Rural Alaska Teachers
E.	Arts/Humanities/Sciences - Core Mission of Undergraduate Education

(e)Each dean will assign his/her unit's % of effort to each of the 5 categories and then will defend his/her assignments before the Provost's Council.  The Provost will make final assignment of % of effort focused on these five areas.

2.	# Ph.D. graduates ÷ # Ph.D. majors(f)

(f) Any unit with no Ph.D. students will be assigned a score of zero for this element; the number of Ph.D. graduates will be summed over the previous three years and the # of Ph.D. majors will be the average of the last three years).

Schools/Colleges

CLA minus Library and KUAC
CRA minus TVC
CSEM
SFOS  minus IMS
SME
SNRAS minus AFES
SOEd
SOM
TVC

Data Responsibilities – Schools/Colleges

Productivity

1,2,3,4,6					PAIR
5		# Professional Products	Dean
		FTEF				PAIR

Quality

1.	Vice Provost for Instructional Affairs
2.	Provost
3.	Provost
4.	Dean
5.	Dean

Centrality

1.	Dean
2.	PAIR

ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
Institutes
3/24/04 (Draft)

Productivity

1.	Total $/State Appro. $
2.	Total ICR $/FTEF(a)
3.	# Refereed Publications/FTEF
4.	# Graduate Students/Faculty
5.	# Undergrad Research Students/Faculty(a)

(a)FTEF = # Regular Faculty FTEF + # Adjunct and Overload Faculty FTEF (3 Adjunct = 1 FTEF); Faculty = # Full-time Faculty

Quality

1.	# Faculty with national or international  awards(b)/Faculty
2.	# Faculty with state, national, or international professional service positions(c)/Faculty
3.	# Publications with >12 citations/Faculty (ISI database)
4.	Promotion/Tenure Candidate Ratings(d) from past three years
5.	Each Dean/Director will submit a one-page paper that describes the quality of his/her unit.

(b)e.g., AAAS Fellow, CASE Teacher of the Year for Alaska (reported for faculty "lifetime")
(c)e.g., NSF panel, journal editorial board
(d)Average of campuswide promotion/tenure committee evaluation of candidates (E/VG/G/S/U scoring in teaching, research, service) assigned on a 1-5 scale.

Centrality(e)

1.	% of unit effort directed to each of the following areas

A.   Alaska's Economic and Workforce development
B.	 Environment and Human Health
C.	 Circumpolar North
D.	 Alaska Native Issues and Rural Alaska Teachers
E.	 Arts/Humanities/Sciences – Core of Undergraduate Education

2.	# Ph.D. graduates ÷ # Ph.D. majors ÷ # Ph.D. majors (last 3 years; Ph.D. grads/students determined by # Ph.D. committees chaired by institute faculty).

(e)Each director will assign his/her unit's % of effort to each of the 5 categories and then will defend his/her assignments before the Provost's Council.  The Provost will make final assignment of % of effort focused on these five areas.

Institutes

AFES		IAB		INE
IARC		Museum          GI			
IMS

Data Responsibilities – Institutes

Productivity

1,2	PAIR
3,4	Director – publications, presentations
	PAIR – FTEF
5,6	Director – students
	PAIR - # faculty

Quality

1,2	Director (using PAIR faculty data)
3	Director
4	Provost
5	Director

Centrality

1	Director
2	PAIR

ATTACHMENT 122/3
UAF Faculty Senate #122
APRIL 5, 2004
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY AFFAIRS

Preamble:
Statement of Faculty Senate representatives of the Classified Policy
Reconciliation Committee

The Faculty Senate is "The primary mechanism for the formulation and oversight of academic policy is the Faculty Senate. Among concerns addressed by the Faculty Senate are: course and program development and change; policies related to academic procedures; academic freedom and faculty rights and responsibilities; and, quality of teaching, research and service" (http://www.uaf.edu/uafgov/faculty). Underlying the following revision of the senate's proposal are these concerns.

1. The institutional officer charged with security oversight (the Facility Securities Officer or equivalent) must be funded fully so that she or he can conduct a complete and thorough review of proposals and assess all the impacts of the proposed activity. Full funding of this office is the most important guarantee for the safety of the community, the protection of the academic environment, and compliance with federal requirements for security.

2.  The UAF Faculty Research Oversight Committee must not only be independent but also seen to be so. The review panel members will not require a security clearance as they will review an unclassified report of the proposal that is prepared by the Facility Securities Officer. The review committee will give a finding of advice to the chancellor. It is critical that the chancellor is not seen to be shaping the advice coming to her or him.

3.  The senate must be able to meet its responsibilities so that the academic integrity of the university is maintained in teaching, research, and service. A faculty review panel elected from the senate will enable the senate to meet these responsibilities.

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.

UAF Policy Concerning Classified and Proprietary Research

RATIONALE:  This policy is offered pursuant to Regents' policy 10.07.02, which says that the university may engage in classified or proprietarily research, subject to approval of the chancellor, "in accordance with Regents' Policy, University Regulation, applicable laws and regulations, and MAU rules and procedures."

Towards ensuring that classified and proprietary research will be conducted in a responsible and ethical manner consistent with mission of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, this policy will provide the chancellor with findings on research proposals reached after a review by a duly constituted committee of faculty.

The Faculty Senate seeks a policy, in principle, of complete disclosure of research activities and sources of funds. The conduct of classified research inherently restricts participation of students and faculty who work on such research.

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. With disclosure to the Faculty Senate, an Faculty Research Oversight Committee will advise the chancellor by means of a finding arrived at by a review following the guidelines set forth below.

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 made possible 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.

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.

Faculty Research Oversight Committee

The Faculty Senate shall establish a Faculty Research Oversight Committee as a standing committee of the senate to review all classified and proprietary proposals, grants, and contracts according to the guidelines listed below and 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.  A Facilities Security Officer shall be an ex-officio member of the committee.  The committee will also include someone from the Office of Sponsored Research and a designee of the chancellor as ex-officio members.  Committee membership must broadly represent the university community.

Guidelines for the Faculty Research Oversight Committee for Reviewing Classified or Proprietary Research Proposals

Proposal review requires that each principal investigator prepare a short non-classified or non-proprietary description and title for the project that can be publicly reviewed.  The following will apply to such statements.  The Facilities Security Officer must participate in the review process to clarify questions pertaining to classified material.

1.  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 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.

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

4.  No thesis or project 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.

5.  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.

6.  No university courses given for degree credit shall be classified in any part.

7.  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.

8.  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.

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

10. The university will establish and maintain Facilities Security Officers to the degree necessary to ensure the legal compliance of all classified agreements.

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

Review Process for Classified and Proprietary Research Proposals

The following procedures shall apply to all proposals submitted to the Office of Sponsored Programs.

1.  The Office of Sponsored Programs will use a checklist to determine if a project requires formal review by the Faculty Research Oversight Committee.

2.  The Faculty Research Oversight Committee will review proposals identified as classified or proprietary according to the guidelines given above and offer recommendations to the chancellor in an expedited fashion.

3.  The committee will publish an annual report on the status of classified and proprietary contracts, grants and proposals at UAF to the Faculty Senate.

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.

ATTACHMENT 122/4
UAF Faculty Senate #122
April 5, 2004
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY AFFAIRS

Resolution on Parking Practice

The current policy of requiring payment and processing of parking violation tickets prior to registration for classes at UAF constitutes a de facto course registration prerequisite. Such a prerequisite is ill-considered and potentially antagonizing by affecting both the majority of people who pay their parking tickets in accordance with the payment or grievance schedule published by Parking Services and the minority of people who do not pay their tickets on time. Consequently this policy as enforced elevates parking violations to the level of academic requirements or a class of violations disbarring students from registration. The UAF catalog gives no indication that registration for classes requires that all parking tickets, irrespective of whether they are overdue or not, need to have been paid for and processed by Parking Services as a prerequisite for class registration.  The only statement relevant to this in the catalog states that delinquency in payments to the university may result in withholding of transcripts, diplomas or grade reports.

To correct this problem we offer the following resolution:

Whereas current University practice does not allow a person to register for a class if there is an outstanding parking ticket even if the ticket is being contested, and

Whereas such a practice constitutes an undeclared qualification for course registration that is not stated in the catalog, and

Whereas students are being denied access to the University because of this practice, now
 
Therefore be it resolved that the Faculty Senate requests that the Registrar and Parking Services end this practice and sever all connections between parking violations and student registration.

ATTACHMENT 122/5
UAF Faculty Senate #122
APRIL 5, 2004
SUBMITTED BY AD HOC COMMITTEE ON UNIT CRITERIA

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend Section 3 (Article V, Committees, E. Standing) of the bylaws to establish a standing "Unit Criteria Committee."  

CAPS = Additions
[[   ]] = Deletions 

3.	THE UNIT CRITERIA COMMITTEE WILL REVIEW PROPOSED UNIT CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF FACULTY SUBMITTED BY THE VARIOUS PEER-REVIEW UNITS OF UAF, AND TO WORK WITH THE HEADS OF THOSE UNITS (OR THEIR DESIGNEES) TO ENSURE THAT THEIR CRITERIA ARE CONSISTENT WITH CRITERIA DEFINED IN THE UAF FACULTY APPOINTMENT & EVALUATION POLICIES & REGULATIONS "BLUE BOOK".  THE COMMITTEE WILL ALSO REVIEW PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE "BLUE BOOK."

TO ENSURE THAT PERSPECTIVES FROM ACROSS UAF ARE REPRESENTED, MEMBERSHIP WILL CONSIST OF FACULTY SENATORS, WITH ONE MEMBER DRAWN FROM EACH OF THE FOLLOWING SCHOOLS/COLLEGES:  CLA; CRA/CES; CSEM; SFOS; ENGINEERING; AND ONE FROM SNRAS, SOED, OR SOM.

	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately

	RATIONALE:  	Currently the Senate has an Ad Hoc committee
		that fulfills this responsibility.  That committee is composed 
		of members drawn from the Senate's other standing 
		committees, with the result that members of the Unit Criteria 
		committee are effectively pulling double duty.  It is apparent 
		that the work done by this committee will be ongoing, as 
		each unit develops criteria and is required to renew them 
		via the Faculty Senate every five years.

ATTACHMENT 122/6
UAF Faculty Senate #122
April 5, 2004
SUBMITTED BY AD HOC COMMITTEE ON UNIT CRITERIA

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve the Unit Criteria for the Department of Anthropology.  

	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately
				Upon Chancellor Approval

	RATIONALE:  	The committee assessed the unit criteria 
		submitted by the Department of Anthropology.  With some 
		changes, agreed upon by the school representative the 
		unit criteria were found to be consistent with UAF 
		guidelines.

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

ATTACHMENT 122/7
UAF Faculty Senate #122
APRIL 5, 2004
SUBMITTED BY AD HOC COMMITTEE ON UNIT CRITERIA

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve the Unit Criteria for the Science and Engineering units of CSEM.  

	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately
				Upon Chancellor Approval

	RATIONALE:  	The committee assessed the unit criteria 
		submitted by the College of Science, Engineering, and 
		Mathematics (CSEM).  With some changes, agreed upon 
		by the school representative the unit criteria were found 
		to be consistent with UAF guidelines.

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

ATTACHMENT 122/8
UAF Faculty Senate #122
APRIL 5, 2004
SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE

RESOLUTION OF RECOGNITION

WHEREAS, The UAF rifle team won its sixth consecutive NCAA Rifle Championship title in March, 

WHEREAS, freshman Matt Rawlings was named a Co-Shooters of the NCAA Championship, and 

WHEREAS, Matt Rawlings captured the individual smallbore championship and finished second in air rifle; Joe Hein was second in smallbore and fifth in individual air rifle; Jamie Beyerle took third in both smallbore and air rifle; and Karl Olsson posted a sixth place finish in smallbore, and 

WHEREAS, four members of the Nanook rifle team earned National Rifle Association All-American status--Matt Rawlings and Joe Hein were named first-team All-American by the National Rifle Association in both smallbore and air rifle; Karl Olson was named first-team All-American in the smallbore division and second-team honoree in air rifle; and Matthew Wallace was named first-team All-American in smallbore, now 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the UAF Faculty Senate congratulates the 2003-2004 UAF rifle team as NCAA champion and commends the team's superior performance.  

ATTACHMENT 122/9
UAF Faculty Senate #122
April 5, 2004
SUBMITTED BY OSYA SCREENING COMMITTEE

The Outstanding Senator of the Year Award Screening Committee has carefully reviewed the 2004 nominations according to the award criteria, and forwards Jane Weber and C. Peter McRoy's nominations for consideration by the Faculty Senate.  

PROCEDURE--After appropriate discussion, the full Senate shall vote by secret ballot.  A simple majority vote of those attending will be necessary for the Senate to confirm an OSYA.  

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

JANE WEBER

Jane Weber has shown effective leadership and a commitment to the faculty senate through her representation of CRA and Developmental Education.  Jane can be depended  upon for thoughtful and effective responses to senate issues.  Jane also is an effective representative of the faculty senate to the CRA faculty.  Jane explains the issues confronting the senate to the faculty and spends time getting CRA faculty input and perspective.  Jane truly is an outstanding faculty senator.

•	Faculty Senate member from 1996-2004. She has just been re-elected by the CRA faculty for another two year term.

•	Committee Work-Developmental Studies Committee from 1993-2004, co-chair of the committee form 1995-2004.  Curriculum Review Committee during 1994-97.  Administrative Committee from 1996-2004.  Ad Hoc Committee on Classified Research in 2003

•	Jane has communicated effectively with the CRA faculty about relevant and important issues that come to the Faculty Senate.  The CRA faculty relies on Jane to represent the interests of our students, our mission, and our faculty. 

•	Jane represents the Faculty Senate well to the CRA Faculty.  Jane explains the significance of Senate issues to the CRA faculty.  Because of Jane's work the CRA faculty is connected to the on-going process of the faculty senate.

•	Jane represents what it means to be a Faculty Senator through her participation, because of her accepting of leadership responsibility, through her collegiality, and through her effective representation of the Faculty Senate and of CRA.  Jane is a responsible and effective Faculty Senate member that deserves to be recognized for her effective service. 

PETER McROY

Peter McRoy is one of those unsung heroes, the category of faculty member that is absolutely essential to maintaining the integrity of any university.  He is constantly on the alert to question administration policies that impact faculty interests.  He does so in an able and gentle fashion, but hangs on like a piranha.  Peter is not given to wide-ranging pronouncements that address abstract notions; he does his homework carefully, and approaches issues on the basis of what is feasible and by asking what can be done to get results.  For four years he has served as the chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee, and has demonstrated amazing comprehension of the issues and values that are at stake for faculty in policies on classified and proprietary research, intellectual property, bookstore management, parking, emeritus appointments, trailing spouses, and budget review.  His leadership is thus based on authoritative knowledge and a cooperative style.  He has been efficient in handling committee meetings, and effective in following up on the work that is invariably deposited in the lap of the lead person.  Peter has indeed earned our recognition for painstaking and persistent efforts to uphold and defend the proper role of faculty in the academy.

The major reasons for proposing Peter's candidacy for the award can be briefly summarized:
•	a long history of participation in governance, dating from his presidency of the university assembly, predecessor to the faculty senate;
•	for four consecutive years an active senator and chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee, along with positions of subcommittee chair and member of other committees;
•	responsible for constitutional changes to make the senate more representative of university faculty as a whole;
•	participation in review of the draft Master Plan for the campus to ensure a faculty voice; and
•	proved skills as a negotiator between faculty and administration.

ATTACHMENT 122/10
UAF Faculty Senate #122
April 5, 2004
SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE

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

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

					BALLOT
				PRESIDENT-ELECT

Please vote for ONE individual to serve as the President-Elect of the UAF Faculty Senate for 2004-2005.

	___	 Michael Hannigan

	___ 	Shirish Patil

	___	_________________________

PERSONAL STATEMENTS:

Michael Hannigan: 

In a few weeks, I will begin my 20TH year with UAF's Northwest Campus.  During all these years, I have served like many of you on various committees ranging at all levels including departmental and divisional to campus, college and university wide.  Each opportunity to serve has been a rewarding learning experience, although sometimes difficult always valuable.  I have learned much about process and acceptable compromise from my colleagues and have been impressed by their serious desire to make a difference.

We are a diverse institution that embraces a powerful mission with sometimes competing interests. Coming from a rural campus, I learned early on that it is very important not only to have a voice at the table, but to listen to the perspectives and ideas brought by others willing to participate. Clearly, the option of 'not participating' in the governance of the university has more than a benign result. I believe very strongly in shared governance and that faculty knowledge and experience must provide effective leadership in concert with the administration, staff and students.  The senate is the critical forum for the responsible discussion of ideas and recommended actions that lead us toward achieving our combined academic mission.

I accept the nomination for president elect and ask for your supportive vote.  Thank you.

Shirish L. Patil:

Shirish is a Assistant Professor of Petroleum Engineering. He has taught at UAF since fall 1991. He is very active in teaching (five times recognized as outstanding faculty by students), research (maintained aggressive research with sustained funding), and service to the university, professional society and the community (served on several UAF committee’s, professional society committee’s, volunteer as ABET observer).

Shirish has served in a number of capacities for the UAF Senate: as a Senator, member of Faculty Affairs Committee, member of Reaffirmation of Accreditation Committee. He is currently the Chair of the UAF Circulation and Parking Subcommittee of MPC, representing the faculty senate. 

Shirish has worked relentlessly to develop MOA between the UAF and the University of Pune, India for faculty and student exchanges and to put UAF in global competition in an ever expanding global competition for universities. Recognizing the potential for this kind of alliance, FNSB Mayor signed a sister city agreement with Pune, India for the benefit of the UAF and FNSB, with support from UAF, UA administration and the Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce.

His primary interest in governance lies in a desire to see UAF continue its progression towards attaining high academic and moral standards amongst faculty, staff and students in a partnership for a common mission and strive for a common bond of institutional strength in years of financial uncertainty ahead.

ATTACHMENT 122/11
UAF Faculty Senate #122
April 5, 2004
SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS

Minutes for Committee on Curricular Affairs    Monday, February 23, 2004 
9:30 - 10:30 a.m.   Wood Center Conference Room B

Present:  Jeannette  Smith, Yuri Shur, Rainer Newberry, Susan Herman, Bill Schneider, Steve Cysewski, Phyllis Morrow, Gayle Gregory, Wanda Martin, Tim Stickel, and Eduard Zilberkant. 

1.  Status of Syllabus template – Susan Herman.  Has met with Joy Morrison and should have something to present to committee soon

2.  Status of cross-listing issues—report to committee by Phyllis Morrow
Here's the current wording:
The same course is sometimes offered by more than one discipline.  Such offerings are referred to as "cross-listed" courses and are designated in the class listings by "cross-listed with _____". 
	Courses are also sometimes offered simultaneously at different levels (100/200 or 400/600, for example) with higher level credit requiring additional effort and possibly higher order prerequisites from the student.  Such courses are referred to as "Stacked" courses and are designated in the class listings by "Stacked with ____".  In the case of 400/600 level stacked courses, graduate standing or permission of the instructor is required for graduate enrollment and a higher level of effort and performance is required on the part of students earning graduate credit.
	Courses simultaneously stacked and cross-listed will be designated in the class listing as "stacked with ___ and cross-listed with ___."
	In all cases, the course syllabus (not the catalog) must stipulate the course content and requirements for each level and/or discipline.  The catalog should indicate if there is a difference in content.

Discussion and suggestions: 
A. According to the 1st paragraph above, cross-listed means "same course".  If that is the case, then there can't be different requirements "for each discipline."  Nor can there be a "difference in content."  Hence, paragraph 4 conflicts with paragraph 1.   After some considerable discussion, we amended Dean Morrow's suggested modifications of paragraphs 1 and 4 of  the cross-listed/stacked regulations.
      The first paragraph to read: 
"A course may be offered by an interdisciplinary program with disciplinary cross-listing.  Courses with comparable content are also sometimes offered by more than one discipline.  Such courses (of which there are two types) are 'cross-listed' and are designated in the class listings by "cross-listed with ______."  One type is offered by a program that is interdisciplinary (such as "Women's Studies) with a specific disciplinary content (e.g., History).  The other (e.g. Theater/Art/Music 200X) is not housed in one discipline but represents interdisciplinary content from all the sponsoring departments."
	
The fourth paragraph should omit references to cross-listing and discipline, and be amended to:
	"For all stacked courses, the course syllabus (not the catalog) must stipulate the course content and requirements for each level [omit: and/or discipline].  The catalog should indicate the difference in prerequisites for each level."  
THE COMMITTEE UNIANIMOUSLY APPROVED THESE SUGGESED CHANGES.  Phyllis pointed out that the Grad Studies Committee should look at the proposed new wording for objections/clarifications.  She agreed to bring this up to them.

B. To resolve the instructor approval question, Dean Phyllis Morrow asked CLA Department Chairs about the proposal she suggested at last Curricular Affairs meeting.  They were adamant that approval from all the cross-listing departments would be necessary.  So, are left with the current complicated system of approval.

3.  Graduation requirements for transfer students: should these be modified?  Pete Pinney asked our committee to look into these.
    Current requirements:    At least 30 credits from UAF  of which at least 12 are in the major and 3 are in the minor and  at least 24 are upper division.

Since the vast bulk of upper division courses taken by a typical undergraduate student are in the student's major, this requirement is equivalent to requiring that at least 24 credits taken at UAF be in the major/minor.  Should the 24 UD requirements be modified??  Not much discussion here, except that since this is a BOR policy, changing it will be a hassle and should be well-thought-out and justified.

Meeting adjourned at  10:30 am.

ATTACHMENT 122/12
UAF Faculty Senate #122
April 5, 2004
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY AFFAIRS

FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, Meeting Report
22 March 2004, 2:00-3:30 p.m.

Present:  Mark Box, CLA; Joan Leguard, CLA; Peter McRoy, SFOS; Dan Odess, CLA; Craig Wisen, SOM; Shirish Patil, SME
Travelers & Dodgers: Joan Braddock, CSEM; Karen Erickson, CLA; Bret Luick, CES; Jennifer McBeath, SALARM

1.	Classified and Proprietary Research Policy 
McRoy and Box reported that the efforts of the committee established to reconcile faculty and administration differences on the policy passed on the floor of the senate in May 2003 are stalled. To keep the process underway Faculty Affairs members present reviewed the policy as revised by the faculty members of the Reconciliation Committee  (Box, Collins & McRoy) and voted unanimously to forward it to the senate Administrative Committee for action. In effect this policy will be a new document for consideration by the senate.

2.	Parking
Last semester Faculty Affairs prepared a resolution concerning the impact of parking fine payment on registration for classes with the goal of severing the link between these processes. This policy issue was sent to the Faculty Senate in the October meeting. The policy was returned to Faculty Affairs with a rebuttal from parking management. However the issues that prompted the draft resolution continue to exist so the resolution remains timely. After a brief discussion the committee voted (with 1 abstention) to forward the policy to the Senate Administrative committee for action. A copy of the policy was sent separately to the Senate Office.

3.	Budget
Craig Wisen reported that he met with Joe Trubacz to elaborate on the budget analysis report. Craig presented a draft of tables he has prepared that rank UAF expenditures by allocation of FTE, salaries associated with job class, allocation of unrestricted expenditures by BOR structure and fiscal year expenditures by BOR structure.  A full report will be presented in the next meeting.

4.	Emeritus Faculty Appointments
The Provost requested that Faculty Affairs review the policy for appointment of emeritus faculty. Concerns include who is eligible to nominate, the period of eligibility for appointment after retirement and the appropriate credentials for appointment. A short discussion identified several points that could be included in such a policy. Also some review of procedures at other universities seemed in order. Preparing a policy is an action item for all committee members with the assignment to prepare statements for a draft policy and circulate by email prior to the next FA meeting. The goal is to have a policy for the final senate meeting of the year.

Next meeting will be 2 p.m. on 12 April in the Runcorn Conference Room, NFS.
Submitted by Peter McRoy

ATTACHMENT 122/13
UAF Faculty Senate #122
April 5, 2004
SUBMITTED BY DEVELOPMENTAL STUDIES

Minutes of The Developmental Studies Committee
March 23, 2004, 1-2pm     Chancellor's Conference Room

Present: Jane Allen, Judy Atkinson, Patty Baldwin, Rich Carr, John Creed, Pat Doak, Dana Greci,  Kat Gustafson, Cindy Hardy, Marji Illingworth, Ron Illingworth, Joe Mason, Mary Matthews (SSS), Debbie Moses, Greg Owens, Sharon Tavernier, Jane Weber.

The Developmental Studies Committee met and discussed the following items:

Department update:  Jane Weber reported on the progress of the Department of Developmental Education.  The department will focus on developing and implementing its five-year plan.  No new hires are anticipated though there continues to be a need for more developmental math faculty.

Report to Provost:  Jane Weber received a memo from the Provost asking about the progression of students from DEVM 105 into Math 107.  A group of DEVM faculty has been meeting on mandatory placement issues and will address this with the Provost.

Report from Mandatory Placement Committee:

This committee has been meeting weekly to devise a plan for mandatory placement in math, reading, and writing.  In addition, subgroups of the committee have been gathering to discuss placement issues in each of these fields.  Implementation of mandatory placement will be a two-year process, beginning with math placement, followed by reading and writing.

Some concerns the committee has discussed include:  expiration of placement test results (ACT/SAT/COMPASS/ASSET); timely testing of entering students and timely distribution of the results to the DEV department; access and accommodation for students with disabilities and for ESL students; and advising of entering students into developmental classes in the first semester.  Current recommendations include:  adding increased sections to meet the increased need caused by mandatory placement; addressing different levels of implementation on the Fairbanks and rural campuses due to the difference in numbers of students; and addressing the "bump-down" issue-providing options for students who need to drop down a level in any of these three areas.

This committee will continue meeting throughout the semester.

Developmental Science classes:

Patty Baldwin asked if Developmental Science classes were being added to the schedule for fall.  Many of her students benefited from this class the last time it was offered.   Marji Illingworth will look into the availability of adjunct faculty to add this to the schedule.

The Developmental Studies Committee FY05:

After this year, the committee will become a curricular review committee for Developmental Classes.  The department will continue to work with the committee, especially on mandatory placement.  Because of the change in the nature of the committee-which has been passed by the Faculty Senate, we will have to re-nominate the member of the committee to meet the new configuration.

The next meeting will be Tuesday, April 13, 1-2, Chancellor's Conference Room.

ATTACHMENT 122/14
UAF Faculty Senate #122
April 5, 2004
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY DEVELOPMENT, ASSESSMENT, & IMPROVEMENT

Faculty Development Committee Meeting
Feb. 24, 2004

Members present:  Gerald Berman, Mike Davis, Lee Haugen, John Kawula, Paul McCarthy, Joy Morrison, Mike Nakaneczny, Channon Price, Larry Roberts, E. Thomas Robinson, Shunpu Zhang, Brian Barnes, Susan Henrichs.

Members absent:  Marjorie Illingworth

Guests present:  Pete Pinney, Hild Peters

1.	Joy reported on the faculty development travel funds that were awarded in December 2003.  14 faculty members were funded (6 new faculty (in their first year here), 13 new & untenured faculty, 2 tenured faculty).  $10, 750 was awarded, with individual awards of $750 or less.  The committee emphasized new faculty and those faculty attending teaching conferences in dispersing these funds.  Joy agreed to issue a report on proposals funded.

2.	Joy commented on the recent new faculty luncheon.  Tom Robinson, Larry Roberts, Paul McCarthy and Joy Morrison were the only members of the Faculty Development committee who attended the luncheon.  24 new faculty members attended.  It became apparent that some new faculty still are not assigned, and/or are not meeting with, their mentors.  Travel funds for new faculty is an issue in CLA, but not apparently with new science faculty.  The e-mail system was roundly criticized.

3.	The committee discussed student evaluation of teaching for the remainder of the meeting.  It was pointed out that the currently used IAS forms are not intended to be the sole tool for teaching evaluations for promotion and tenure, but that they are used in that fashion.  Discussion around peer evaluation of teaching and peer evaluation of teaching methods indicates that these methods are not applied universally around campus, nor are the evaluations comparable.  It was noted that asking Dept. Chairs and Deans to evaluate teaching would add to their workload burden.  Hild Peters indicated that there are a range of IAS forms that faculty can choose from.  She also noted that there is a different form for distance delivery courses.  The consensus seemed to be that any change in teaching evaluation procedures, including more uniform implementation of the three instruments currently available to faculty, would have to be in a standard format, short, and universally applied.  It was also noted that support of the Provost and the University-wide Committee would be necessary.  The committee agreed to resume this discussion at our next meeting. 

4.	Joy mentioned the upcoming women’s conference at UAF (April 8-10/04), the Dept. Chairs training on April 7/04, and a seminar about teaching abroad sponsored by International Programs on March 2/04.

5.	The next meeting was scheduled for 8:00 a.m. on Tuesday March 30/04 in 222 Bunnell.  The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 a.m.