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

A G E N D A
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #123
Monday, May 3, 2004
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 #122
		C.	Adoption of Agenda

1:05	II	Status of Chancellor's Office Actions 		  5 Min.
		A.	Motions Approved:  
		B.	Motions Pending:  
			1.	Motion on classified research policy.
			2.	Motion to amend the Faculty Senate Section 3, 
				(Article V, Committee, Standing) of the Bylaws 
				to establish a "Unit Criteria Committee."  
			3.	Motion to approve the Unit Criteria for the 
				Science and Engineering units of CSEM.

1:10 	III	Public Comments/Questions      			  5 Min.

1:15	IV	Governance Reports       				25 Min.
	A.	President's Comments - Pete Pinney 
	B.	President-elect's Report - Abel Bult-Ito    
	C.	Staff Council - Josh Steadman  
	D.	ASUAF -Thom Walker / GSO -   
	E.	Faculty Liaison - Eva Kopacz  
	F.	Budget Liaison - Craig Wisen (Handout)

1:40	V	A.	Remarks by Chancellor M. Lind   		10 Min.
		B.	Remarks by Provost P. Reichardt		10 Min.

2:00	VI	Consent Agenda
	A.	Motion to approve the list of the 2003-2004 degree 
		candidates, submitted by Administrative Committee 
		(Attachment 123/1)
	B.	Resolution of Recognition for F. Stuart "Terry" Chapin, 
		submitted by Faculty Affairs (Attachment 123/2)
	C.	Resolution of Recognition for  Wendy Ehnert, submitted 
		by Faculty Affairs (Attachment 123/3)
	D.	Resolution of Recognition for C. Peter McRoy as Outstanding 
		Senator of the Year, submitted by Administrative Committee 
		(Attachment 123/4)
	E.	Resolution of Recognition for Jane Weber as Outstanding 
		Senator of the Year, submitted by Administrative Committee 
		(Attachment 123/5)
	F.	Resolution of Appreciation for Marshall Lind, submitted 
		by Administrative Committee (Attachment 123/6)
	G.	Resolution of Appreciation for Pete Pinney, submitted 
		by Administrative Committee (Attachment 123/7)

2:00	VII	New Business					45 Min.
	A.	Motion to amend the "UAF Advanced Placement Credit" 
		for Foreign Languages to incorporate Alaska Native 
		Languages, submitted by Curricular Affairs (Attachment 123/8)
	B.	Motion to amend the policy on Stacked and Cross-listed 
		courses, submitted by Curricular Affairs and Graduate 
		Academic & Advisory Committee (Attachment 123/9)
	C.	Motion to approve a change in the residency requirements 
		for military personnel pursuing an AA/AAS approved* 
		program as part of the ServiceMembers Opportunity College 
		(SOC), submitted by Curricular Affairs (Attachment 123/10)
	D.	Motion to adopt regulations for course syllabi, submitted 
		By Curricular Affairs (Attachment 123/11)
	E.	Motion to amend the Graduate Full or Part-time Status/Study 
		Load policy, submitted by Graduate Academic & Advisory 
		Committee (Attachment 123/12)
	F.	Motion to amend the Graduate Degree Requirements for the 
		Master of Arts with Project and the Master of Science with 
		Project, submitted by Graduate Academic & Advisory 
		Committee (Attachment 123/13)
	G.	Motion to amend the "Appeals Policy for Academic Decisions 
		Other Than Assignment of Grades", submitted by Faculty 
		Appeals and Oversight (Attachment 123/14)
	H.	Motion to approve the Unit Criteria for the Department of 
		Anthropology, submitted by Ad Hoc Committee on Unit 
		Criteria (Attachment 123/15)
	I. 	Motion to approve the Unit Criteria for Mathematics, 
		submitted by Ad Hoc Committee on Unit Criteria 
		(Attachment 123/16)
	J.	Motion to amend the UAF "Regulations for the Appointment 
		and Evaluation of Faculty" (Blue Book), submitted by Ad Hoc 
		Committee on Unit Criteria (Attachment 123/17) 

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

3:00	VIII	Annual Committee Reports 			15 Min.
	A.	Curricular Affairs - R. Newberry (Handout)
	B.	Faculty Affairs - P. McRoy (Handout)
	C.	Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee – C. Mulder
		(Attachment 123/18)
	D.	Core Review - D. Schamel (Attachment 123/19)
	E.	Curriculum Review - W. Schneider (Handout)
	F.	Developmental Studies - J. Weber (Attachment 123/20)
	G.	Faculty Appeals & Oversight - P. Layer  (Attachment 123/21)
	H.	Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement – 
		P. McCarthy (Attachment 123/22)
	G.	Ad Hoc Committee on Unit Criteria - D. Odess 
		(Attachment 123/23)

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

3:20	XI	Announcements of Award Recipients      		  5 Min.
	A.	Announcement of the Outstanding Senator of the 
		Year Award 
	B.	Announcement of Usibelli Awards (Attachment 123/24)
	C.	Announcement of Emeriti Faculty Awards 
		(Attachment 123/25)
	D.	Presentation of Resolution of Appreciation for Pete Pinney 

3:25	XII	Adjournment of the 2003-2004 Faculty Senate   

3:30	XIII	2004-2005 Faculty Senate Members Take Their Seats
	A.	Roll Call of 2004-2005 Members       		  5 Min.
	B	President's Remarks - Abel Bult-Ito    		  5 Min. 

3:40	XIV.	New Senate Business      				15 Min. 
	A.	Motion to endorse 2004-2005 committee membership,
		submitted by Administrative Committee (Attachment 123/26)
	B.	Motion to approve the 2004-2005 UAF Faculty Senate 
		meeting calendar, submitted by Administrative Committee 
		(Attachment 123/27)
	C.	Motion to authorize the Administrative Committee to 
		act on behalf of the Senate during the summer months, 
		submitted by Administrative Committee (Attachment 123/28)

3:55	XI	Adjournment

4:00		Reception  & Presentation of Awards  	Wood Center C/D

ATTACHMENT 123/1
UAF Faculty Senate #123
May 3, 2004
SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE

MOTION:
======

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

	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately

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

ATTACHMENT 123/2
UAF Faculty Senate #123
May 3, 2004
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY AFFAIRS

RESOLUTION OF RECOGNITION

FOR

F. STUART CHAPIN III

WHEREAS,  F. Stuart "Terry" Chapin, Professor in the Department of Biology and Wildlife and Institute of Arctic Biology is the first person in Alaska to be elected to the National Academy of Sciences, and

WHEREAS, Terry Chapin is the recipient of numerous awards, including Member of the Swedish Royal Academy of Agriculture and Forestry,  Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 2002, Outstanding faculty member, UAF (2002), and

WHEREAS, Terry Chapin initiated and served as the director of the Interdisciplinary Graduate Education and Training Program in Regional Resilience and Adaptation, and

WHEREAS, Terry Chapin is internationally known for his work on arctic plant ecology and global climate change and has published over 280 scientific papers in these research areas, and

WHEREAS, Terry Chapin has greatly increased the attention to interactions between humans and global climate change, including recognition of the value of knowledge held by Native Alaskans, now 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the UAF Faculty Senate congratulates Terry Chapin on his election to the National Academy of Sciences and recognizes him as an outstanding faculty member and international ambassador for UAF.

ATTACHMENT 123/3
UAF Faculty Senate #123
May 3, 2004
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY AFFAIRS

RESOLUTION OF RECOGNITION

FOR

WENDY EHNERT

WHEREAS, Wendy Ehnert, AP science teacher at Lathrop High School, in March received the National Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching and was one of four of the 94 awardees invited to address Congress, and 

WHEREAS, Wendy Ehnert was selected to be a Fulbright exchange teacher for the Czech Republic in 2001-02, and 

WHEREAS, Wendy Ehnert has earned a Masters degree from UAF, and

WHEREAS, Wendy Ehnert has long maintained contacts and collaborations with UAF faculty to further her teaching skills and provide opportunities for students, now 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the UAF Faculty Senate congratulates Wendy Ehnert in receipt of her award and recognizes her as an outstanding graduate of UAF and contributor to education in Alaska.

ATTACHMENT 123/4
UAF Faculty Senate #123
May 3, 2004
SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE

OUTSTANDING SENATOR OF THE YEAR AWARD

FOR

C. PETER McROY

WHEREAS, C. Peter McRoy has served as the president of the University Assembly from 1981-1983; and

WHEREAS, C. Peter McRoy has served the UAF Faculty Senate in numerous capacities, often in leadership roles, since 2000; and 

Whereas, C. Peter McRoy has made major contributions to bylaw changes that made the UAF Faculty Senate more representative of university faculty as a whole; and

Whereas, C. Peter McRoy has made major contributions in review of the draft Master Plan for the UAF campus to ensure a faculty voice; and

WHEREAS, C. Peter McRoy has proven skills as a negotiator between faculty and university administration that have contributed significantly to successful conclusion of Faculty Senate business; 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the UAF Faculty Senate recognize C. Peter McRoy as Outstanding Senator of the Year for Academic Year 2003-2004.

ATTACHMENT 123/5
UAF Faculty Senate #123
May 3, 2004
SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE

OUTSTANDING SENATOR OF THE YEAR AWARD

FOR

JANE WEBER

WHEREAS, Jane Weber has served the UAF Faculty Senate in numerous capacities, often in leadership roles, since 1993; and 

Whereas, Jane Weber has communicated effectively with the UAF College of Rural Alaska (CRA) faculty about relevant and important issues that come to the Faculty Senate, and, therefore, the CRA faculty have been connected to the on-going process of shared governance; and

Whereas, Jane Weber has done a wonderful job representing CRA in the Faculty Senate and, therefore, the CRA faculty have come to rely on Jane to represent the interests of the CRA students, mission, and faculty; and

WHEREAS, Jane Weber has made major contributions to UAF Developmental Studies culminating in the establishment of the CRA Department of Developmental Education, which Jane will chair next academic year; and 

Whereas, Jane Weber always has had the education of students as her top priority; 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the UAF Faculty Senate recognize Jane Weber as Outstanding Senator of the Year for Academic Year 2003-2004.

ATTACHMENT 123/6
UAF Faculty Senate #123
May 3, 2004
SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE

RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION

FOR

MARSHALL LIND

WHEREAS, Marshall Lind is retiring on July 1, 2004, after serving 40 years in Alaska education; and,

WHEREAS, Marshall Lind was Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Education from 1971-1983, and again from 1986-1987, serving under four governors for a combined total of more than 13 years; and,

WHEREAS, Marshall Lind was involved with the creation of the Regional Educational Attendance Areas and the implementation of the Molly Hootch Consent decree; and,

WHEREAS, Marshall Lind has served in various positions for the UA system, from visiting professor of education to dean of the School of Extended and Graduate Studies; and,

WHEREAS, Marshall Lind served as chancellor of the University of Alaska Southeast from 1987-1999 prior to coming to UAF and served as chancellor of the University of Alaska Fairbanks from 1999-2004; and,

WHEREAS, Marshall Lind, in that time, has been a strong proponent of academic freedom and has consistently advanced the concept of shared governance with staff and faculty; and,

WHEREAS, Marshall Lind continually sought to strengthen the commitment to diversity and workplace ethics and has been instrumental in strengthening university ties to the larger community; and 

WHEREAS, Marshall Lind was the recipient of the 2002 Denali Award from the Alaska Federation of Natives, the highest honor AFN gives to non-Natives, for his commitment to serving the educational needs of rural and Native Alaskans; and,

WHEREAS, the faculty of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, through its Faculty Senate, wish to acknowledge the outstanding contributions to higher education of Marshall Lind, the chancellor of UAF; now,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the UAF Faculty Senate acknowledges and proclaims to all that Marshall Lind has rendered outstanding service to the faculty, staff, students, alumni and administration of UAF and to the citizens of Alaska, and hereby express its deep appreciation.

ATTACHMENT 123/7
UAF Faculty Senate #123
May 3, 2004
SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE

RESOLUTION  OF  APPRECIATION

FOR

Pete P. Pinney

WHEREAS, Pete Pinney has served the UAF Faculty Senate in a manner deserving of the UAF Faculty Senate's greatest admiration and respect; and 

Whereas, Pete Pinney has served as Senator to the UAF Faculty Senate from 2001-2003; and 

Whereas, Pete Pinney has served as a member of the Curricular Affairs Committee and as chair of the Curriculum Review Committee from 2001-2002; and 

Whereas, Pete Pinney has served as Chair of the Administrative Committee and as President-Elect of the UAF Faculty Senate from 2002-2003; and 

Whereas, Pete Pinney has served as a member of the UAF Governance Coordinating Committee from 2002-2004; and 

WHEREAS, Pete Pinney has served as a member of the UA Faculty Alliance from 2002-2003, and as chair of the UA Faculty Alliance from 2003-2004; and 

WHEREAS, Pete Pinney has served as a member of the UA Systemwide Governance Council from 2003-2004; and 

Whereas, Pete Pinney has served as a member of the UA Ad Hoc Committee on Accountability & Sustainability and as a member of the Chancellor's Search Committee in 2004; and 

Whereas, Pete Pinney has served as President of the UAF Faculty Senate from 2003-2004 and has championed collegiality, honesty, integrity, and respectful resolve; and

WHEREAS, The UAF Faculty Senate wishes to acknowledge the outstanding service rendered the faculty and the University by the work of Pete Pinney as he concludes his term as president; now 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the UAF Faculty Senate acknowledges the many contributions of Pete Pinney and expresses its appreciation for his exemplary service.

ATTACHMENT 123/8
UAF Faculty Senate #123
May 3, 2004
SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS

MOTION:  
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the "UAF Advanced Placement Credit" for Foreign Languages to incorporate Alaska Native Languages (p. 16 of the 2003-2004 catalog).  

CAPS  - Additions
[[   ]]  - Deletions

UAF Advanced Placement Credit

Foreign Language/ ALASKA NATIVE LANGUAGE

After completing the course in which you were placed (above 101) and earning a B grade or higher, you may ask to receive [["bonus"]] credit for the two immediately preceding prerequisite courses, if any.  However, credit cannot be awarded for such courses if university credit has already been granted for them (for example, through College Board Advanced Placement national tests or credit transfer from another college).  [[Bonus]] Credit will not be awarded for special topics courses, individual study courses, literature or culture courses, CONVERSATION COURSES, OR ANY COURSE TAUGHT IN ENGLISH.  

	EFFECTIVE:  	Fall 2004

RATIONALE:  	Alaska Native Languages may be used to fulfill the Foreign/Alaska Native languages option in the B.A. , as part of the "Perspectives on the Human Condition" in the Baccalaureate Core, and they may also be used to fulfill the Humanities and Social Science requirement in the A.A.S.  This brings the Advance Placement Credit in line with other degree requirements which include Alaska Native Languages as a language option.  

ATTACHMENT 123/9
UAF Faculty Senate #123
May 3, 2004
SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS & GRADUATE ACADEMIC & ADVISORY

MOTION: 
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the policy on Stacked and Cross-listed Courses (p. 181, 2003-2004 UAF Catalog and UAF Faculty Senate Academic Course and Degree Procedures Manual ). 

CAPS   - Additions      
 [[  ]] - Deletions

Stacked and Cross-listed Courses

[[The same course is sometimes offered by more than one discipline.  Such offerings are referred to as "cross-listed" courses]] SOME COURSES ARE OFFERED BY AN INTERDISCIPLINARY PROGRAM (SUCH AS "WOMEN'S STUDIES) WITH A SPECIFIC DISCIPLINARY CONTENT (E.G., HISTORY).  SOME COURSES CONTAINING INTERDISCIPLINARY CONTENT ARE SPONSORED BY SEVERAL DEPARTMENTS (E.G. THEATER/ART/MUSIC 200X).  BOTH TYPES OF COURSES ARE 'CROSS-LISTED' 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]] ARE designated in the class listing as "stacked with ___ and cross-listed with ___."
	FOR ALL STACKED COURSES, [[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.]] THE DIFFERENCE IN PREREQUISITES FOR EACH LEVEL.

EFFECTIVE:  	Fall 2004

RATIONALE:  	This wording clarifies the cross-listing/stacked course descriptions and removes the contradiction between paragraphs 1 ('the same course') and 4 ('difference in content').

ATTACHMENT 123/10
UAF Faculty Senate #123
May 3, 2004
SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS

MOTION:
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve a change in the residency requirements for military personnel (and dependents) pursuing an AA/AAS approved* program as part of the ServiceMembers Opportunity College (SOC) from 15 credits to 6 credits. 

(*NOTE: Current approved AAS degree programs are:  Applied Accounting, Airframe & Powerplant and Culinary Arts)

EFFECTIVE:  	Upon approval by the Board of Regents

RATIONALE:	UAF is listed as a ServiceMembers Opportunity College (SOC) institution.  The ability to continue this relationship is dependent upon the participation displayed by agreements signed by the military personnel with UAF.  There has not been an incentive to prepare this documentation with the existing policy--typically military personnel can meet the residency requirement during their service time and have not felt the need to formalize the process.  However, the lack of such agreements has jeopardized the continuation for UAF in this network.  By having an incentive, similar to UAA's, and more feasibly formalizing electronically the SOC agreement, UAF stands to maintain status and gain a greater working relationship with the military units in the Fairbanks community.
  
-	UAF's membership as a SOC Network institution assures the continued presence of UAF on Ft. Wainwright (weekly visits by UAF Admissions Counselor and a representative from TVC).

-	As a SOC Network institution, UAF would be "eligible" to offer degree programs on the Army installations in Alaska, to include Ft. Greely as it becomes an Army Guard installation manned by 350+ active duty Guard members and their families.

-	The Army Education Center is eager to have UAF retain its status as a SOC Network institution as it views UAF as a critical partner in the educational opportunity arena for Ft. Wainwright soldiers and their families.  Family members, spouses and age-appropriate dependents, are eligible for the SOC programs.

-	The Department of the Army, Voluntary Education division, and SOC are waiting to hear from UAF, through the Education Center, about their decision to retain status as a SOC Network institution.

-	UAA currently has a 3-credit residency requirement for this program

ATTACHMENT 123/11
UAF Faculty Senate #123
May 3, 2004
SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS

MOTION:
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to adopt regulations for course syllabi as follows:  

"Syllabus Requirements for all UAF Undergraduate courses"

During the first week of class, instructors will distribute a course syllabus. Although modifications may be made throughout the semester, this document will contain the following information (as applicable to the discipline):

1. Course information: title, number, credits, prerequisites, location, meeting time.

2. Instructor (and if applicable, Teaching Assistant) information: name, office location, office hours, telephone, email.

3. Course readings/materials: course textbook, author, publisher. Supplementary readings (indicate whether required or recommended) and any supplies required. 

4. Course description: content of the course and how it fits into the broader curriculum; expected proficiencies required to undertake the course, if applicable.  May include, and must be consistent with, catalog course description.

5. Course Goals (more general) and Student Learning Outcomes (provide examples)

6. Instructional methods: describe the teaching techniques (eg: lecture, case study, small group discussion, private instruction, studio instruction, values clarification, games, journal writing, use of Blackboard, audio/video conferencing, etc.).

7. Course calendar: a schedule (daily or weekly major topics or assignments). You may call the outline Tentative or Work in progress to allow for modifications during the semester.

8. Course policies: specify course rules, including your policies on attendance, tardiness, class participation, make-up exams, and plagiarism/academic integrity. 

9. Evaluation: specify how students will be evaluated, what factors will be included, their relative value, and how they will be tabulated into grades (on a curve, absolute scores, etc.)

10. Support Services:  specify your openness to working with the Writing Center(8th floor, Gruening, 474-5314) and the Math Lab (305 Chapman), both of which provide excellent advice, tutoring and assistance; and/or Office of Student Support Services (508 Gruening, 474-6844).  Also describe departmental and College support services.

11.  Disabilities Services: The Office of Disability Services implements the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and insures that UAF students have equal access to the campus and course materials. State that you will work with the Office of Disabilities Services (203 WHIT, 474-7043)  to provide reasonable accommodation to students with disabilities.”   

EFFECTIVE:  	Fall 2004

RATIONALE: 	The quality and content of syllabi vary tremendously across UAF.  This legislation will both provide a guide to what needs to be in a syllabus and require instructors to provide them.

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

Supporting and explanatory material relative to the Syllabus Requirements

CHECK THE FOLLOWING UAF WEBSITE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON DEVELOPING A SYLLABUS:   http://distance.uaf.edu/dls/resources/tt/syllabi/

ITEM EXAMPLES, SUGGESTED TEXT:
Example for item 4:  This is an advanced class that will prepare students to provide technical support to computer users. The skills taught will include diagnosing problems, researching solutions, meeting user needs, developing training materials, and giving workshops and lessons. (Prerequisites: Comprehensive experience using computers.)  
Or
This course offers a comprehensive overview of interrelationships between Northern communities and global political, economic, and cultural forces. It is a distance education course that involves twice-weekly audio-conferences, BLACKBOARD web resources, videos, and assigned readings. UAF’s BLACKBOARD (http://classes.uaf.edu) provides us with a common website containing course information, links to relevant websites, and avenues for sharing information regularly with each other. In our first class, I’ll discuss how you can begin to use it regularly. The reading list is demanding, but I hope that you will find it exciting and stimulating. I expect all students in the course to be active and critical learners and to play an integral part in the learning process.

We begin the course by reviewing what we mean by the ‘circumpolar North’: what peoples, cultures, nation-states, and ecological zones are included. At the same time, we’ll read about the nature of the global economy and discuss how it shapes options available to northern communities. I contend that we cannot begin to understand contemporary issues in northern communities without a critical understanding of these global forces. In this sense, there are no “isolated” communities in the North—all have interactions in one way or another with the global economy.

We’ll then explore in-depth case studies of colonial and contemporary histories in Alaska, Nunavut (Canada) and the Russian North to understand commonalities and divergent paths taken by indigenous peoples and settler populations over time. We’ll examine selected political, economic, and socio-cultural issues affecting northern communities: demographic changes and community well-being, self-determination by indigenous peoples, growing involvement of transnational corporations in the North, climate change and Arctic contaminants, militarization of the Arctic, and the emerging influence of international bodies such as the Arctic Council.

Finally, we’ll take a critical look at theoretical perspectives and conceptual frameworks for understanding the circumpolar North. These range from understanding the north as an exotic, remote region, to viewing it through the lens of internal colonialism, to that of an indigenous homeland. We’ll examine notions of sustainability and strategies for sustainable development with the hope of identifying approaches that take into account ecological dynamics, indigenous rights, and environmental justice.

Example for item 5:  COURSE GOALS:

1.	To create a learning community within our classroom.

2.	To understand the interrelatedness of organizational elements and systems theory.  To analyze why organizations behave as they do; and if, when and how to change the behavior.

3.	To understand and use  vocabulary and specific theories to explain the organizational behavior you have experienced in any organization of which you have been a member, as well as in the organization we create within our class.

4.	To communicate in a professional manner.  To express your ideas well formally and informally, both in written and oral form.  To speak out regularly and to write well.  To give and receive appropriate feedback, and understand the role of feedback in organizational behavior.

5.	To collaborate with all members of the class, professor (manager) and students (coworkers) alike; and to deal with conflict openly.

6.	To participate in decision-making about how our classroom organization will be structured, and experience the effects of these decisions.  

7.	To develop the ability to empathize, to put yourself in the place of others with whom you interact in this and other organizations, and to understand how they feel and perceive the world.  To understand how you and others affect the dynamics of the group.

8.	To use e-mail and the Blackboard Discussion Forum as communications tools for lateral, top down and bottom up communication within our "organization."  You are required to check and respond to your O.B. e-mail, and to check the discussion board 2-3 times a week.

Example for item 6:  We will achieve these goals through the readings, discussions, short lectures, journal and report writing, through analysis of case studies and exercises, through individual AND especially through group work.  Some of our discussion will be held in the discussion section of Blackboard, which you are expected to check at least three times a week.  

Example for item 7: 
COURSE OUTLINE:
WEEK 1 (January 21) Introductions, explanation of the course.  1.  A well-thought out list with 3 sections that explain your reasons and your personal goals for taking this course; how you will help yourself meet your goals; and what you will need from me to help you meet your goals. 2.  Study this course manual carefully, in preparation for a quiz (for bonus points) on its contents.  3.  Read and Study Ch. 1, also prepare for the first bonus points quiz.

WEEK 2 (January 28)  Read & study Ch. 1 OB in changing times; and Ch. 2 Organizations & Managerial Challenges.  
WEEK 3 (Feb. 4)   Read and analyze Eagle Smelting Case.  Read & study Ch. 3 Personality, Perception & Attribution and, Ch. 4 Attitudes, Values & Ethics.  Student Manager Applications due.  Application is a letter explaining why you want the job and why you think you’d be effective.  

WEEK 4 (Feb. 11)  Read and study Ch. 5 Motivation.  Choose student managers.  Stu. Mgr. Meeting  

WEEK 5 (Feb. 18) Group Contracts first draft due Read and study Ch. 6 Learning & Performance Mgt. and Ch. 7 Stress & Well-being.  
WEEK 6 (Feb. 25) Read and study Ch. 8 Communications. Facilitative & non-Facilitative ways to Communicate. Group Practice Case due.   Student Manager’s Meeting TBA

WEEK 7 (Mar. 3)  Group Contract Final Draft due, along with a 1-2 page synopsis of your group’s chosen leadership video.  Read and study Ch. 9 Work Teams & Groups.  

WEEK 8 (Mar. 10)  Read and study Ch. 10 Decision Making. Evaluation of class to date,  Feedback Exercise.  Type a one page sheet for each member of your small group, with three comments for each on what is going well, and three suggestions for future development.  Midterm Exam from 8:30-10 p.m.  Bring your completed Participation Self Evaluation sheet for a mid-term participation grade.  Stu. Mgr. Meeting TBA
WEEK 9 (Mar. 24)    Read and study Ch. 12, Leadership.FIRST GROUP CASE due.

WEEK 10 (Mar. 31)  Hand in a 4-6 page group analysis of how your video depicts leadership theory as you learned it in Ch. 12.  ReaD AND STUDY Ch. 11, Power & Politics. Stu. Mgr. Meeting TBA
WEEK 11 (April 7)  Read and study Ch. 13, Conflict and Ch. 14 Jobs and work design  2nd GROUP CASE due.
WEEK 12 (April 14). Read and study Ch. 15, Org. Structure.     Stu. Mgr. Meeting TBA 

WEEK 13 (April 21).  Read and study Ch. 16,  Org. Culture. 

WEEK 14 (April 28) Ch. 18,  Org. Change.   Final Exam from 8:30-10 P.M.

WEEK 15 (May 5).  Final reflection paper due.  Hand in Student Manager Evaluation, second Participation Self-Evaluation forms.  Termination Exercise, Debrief.     

There needs to be a balance between structure and flexibility in this course design, in order to take advantage of the unique learning opportunities that emerge from each individual group.  Therefore, I reserve the right to modify the course outline as we go along.  I will always consult the class in advance of making any modifications, and will take your ideas and feelings into consideration when making any changes.   
  
Examples for item 8: (determine your own policies and consequences, and state them clearly).  High ethical standards are essential for maintaining credibility. Every course taught at UAF seeks to maintain these standards, starting with an emphasis on producing original and factual work.  Plagiarism is defined as appropriating passages or ideas from another person’s work and using them as one’s own.  Lifting passages of text from the Web is also plagiarism and will not be accepted.  I should tell you that I own several research papers obtained from websites such as SchoolSucks.com.
Or
Fabrication is the inclusion of an invented statement within the body of a work. Neither plagiarism nor fabrication will be tolerated in the XXX Department. Any student found to have plagiarized or fabricated statements will be penalized, at a minimum, with an automatic “F” for the class. Any student found turning in a paper that has been used in another class will also receive an automatic “F” grade.

Example for item 9: Each of you begins as an “average” student, i.e. with a C grade and proceeds to work from there. To obtain an “A” grade you will need to produce work that far exceeds my normal expectations. My normal expectations are regular attendance, hard work, evidence of time spent with the material, and an ability to demonstrate understanding of all concepts.

Grading will follow UAF guidelines:

A   =	An honor grade, indicates originality and independent work, a thorough mastery of the subject, and the satisfactory completion of more work than is regularly required (425 points, or above)
B   =	Indicates outstanding ability above the average level of performance (375-424)
C   =	Indicates a satisfactory or average level of performance (300-374).
D   =	The lowest passing grade, indicates work of below average quality and 	performance (250-300).
F   =	Indicates failure to meet lowest standards (below 250 points).

Examples for Item 11: 
a.  UAF is committed to equal opportunity for all students.  If you have a documented disability, please let me know within the first two weeks of class, and I will work with the Office of Disabilities Services to make the appropriate accommodation.     If you are the first in your family to attempt a four-year college degree, and/or eligible for Pell grants, you have opportunities for tutorial and other forms of support from the office of Student Support Services.  I will collaborate with the Office of Disabilities and/or the Office of Student Support Services to make your educational experience in my class as positive as possible.  Check the following website for further information.    http://www.uaf.edu/advising/learningresources/

b.  Students with documented disabilities who need academic accommodations should contact disabilities services and discuss these with me during the first two weeks of class or no later than ( date).  If you have an undocumented disability, this a good time to get it documented.
 
c. UAF makes reasonable accommodations for persons with documented disabilities. Students should notify the Disability Services Coordinator located in the Center for Health and Counseling, and their instructors of any special needs. Instructors should be notified the first day of classes.
 
d. If you have specific physical, psychiatric or learning disabilities and require reasonable accommodations please let me know early in the semester so that your learning needs may be appropriately met.  You will need to provide documentation of your disability to Disability Services in the Center for Health and Counseling, 474-7043, TTY 474-7045.
 
e. I encourage students with documented disabilities to discuss possible accommodations with me after class or during my office hours.

ATTACHMENT 123/12
UAF Faculty Senate #123
May 3, 2004
SUBMITTED BY GRADUATE ACADEMIC & ADVISORY COMMITTEE

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the Graduate Full or Part-time Status/Study Load policy (p. 40, 2003-2004 Catalog) as follows:  

CAPS - Additions
[[   ]] - Deletions

FULL OR PART-TIME STATUS/STUDY LOAD

As a graduate student if you're registered for nine or more semester credits, with three or more at the 600 level, you are classified as a full-time student (audited credits are not counted toward workload).
You may enroll in up to [[18 ]] 14 credits per semester without special permission.  To enroll in 15-19 credits [[or more, you need a 3.0 cumulative grade point average]], YOU MUST BE IN GOOD STANDING AND YOU MUST OBTAIN an overload approval from your advisor and department [[head]] CHAIR.  ENROLLMENT IN 20 OR MORE GRADUATE CREDITS WILL BE ALLOWED ONLY IN EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES, AND REQUIRES GOOD STANDING AND OVERLOAD APPROVAL FROM YOUR ADVISOR, DEPARTMENT CHAIR, AND DEAN, AND THE DEAN OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL.

	EFFECTIVE:  	Fall 2004

RATIONALE:  	This proposes new wording on limits to number of credits/semester.  This would replace the first paragraph under "FULL OR PART-TIME STATUS/STUDY LOAD" on p. 40 of the current catalog. The limit of 14 credits is calculated by using the ratio to full-time credit load for the undergraduate limit of 18: 18/12 = 3/2.  Multiplying this ratio by the full-time graduate load gives 3/2 X 9 = 27/2 = 13.5, and rounding up gives 14.

ATTACHMENT 123/13
UAF Faculty Senate #123
May 3, 2004
SUBMITTED BY GRADUATE ACADEMIC & ADVISORY COMMITTEE

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the Graduate Degree Requirements for the Master of Arts with Project and the Master of Science with Project (p. 47 of the 2003-2004 Catalog) as follows:

[[  ]] = Deletions
CAPS = Additions

Master of Arts – with Project
	a.	Successfully complete at least 30 credits of course work 
		including at least [[six]] THREE credits of project work 
		(698).

Master of Science – with Project
	a.	Successfully complete at least 30 credits of course work 
		including at least [[six]] THREE credits of project work 
		(698).

	EFFECTIVE:  	Fall 2004

	RATIONALE:  	The purpose of the project is to provide 
		students with a "capstone experience" that differs from 
		a standard class in the level of independent work required.  
		At least nine departments or programs (including Physics, 
		Resource and Applied Economics, and the proposed 
		program in Community Psychology) consider three credits 
		sufficient to provide such an experience, especially for 
		projects that are practical in nature.  It is the type of 
		work rather than the number of credits that distinguishes 
		the project from a standard class.  The current 6-credit 
		requirement reduces the flexibility of the student in 
		taking other recommended or required courses.  This 
		amendment will allow the programs that currently list 3-6 
		credits among their requirements to keep these 
		requirements while not affecting programs wishing to 
		maintain a 6-credit minimum.

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

FROM DOUG GOERING, MECHANICAL ENGINEERING:

The Mechanical Engineering Department has traditionally had a wide variety of funded research projects.  Many of these are of a very practical or applied nature.  These include, for instance research into the low temperature performance of hybrid vehicles, building indoor air quality, thermal performance of roads or structures in permafrost areas, etc.  Much of this funded research includes opportunities for graduate students to contribute to real-world applied engineering projects.  Direct application to specific real-world systems is often an important component of engineering graduate work.  On the other hand, some of this work is so applied that it is either less in depth, or requires less effort to accomplish than a more traditional 6-credit Master's thesis.  None-the-less, we see these types of practical projects as very important in engineering and thus, several years ago we began offering our Master's degrees with a three-credit project option to better accommodate these situations.  As it turns out, most engineering graduate programs do offer Master's degrees with a 3-credit project (as opposed to 6-credit thesis) option, so our practice here is in step with other engineering graduate programs across the country.

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

FROM ROBERT PERKINS, ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE MANAGEMENT:

I coordinate the Engineering and Science Management (ESM) Program in the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department.  We offer two MS degrees, Engineering Management and Science Management....[N]either degree conforms to that 6-credit project requirement.  Further, the 3-credit project that is required is known as ESM 684, not 698 or 699.

I'd like to report a detailed rational as to why this is so, but the best I can do is that it has been exactly that way, a 3-credit ESM 684 project, since at least 1983 when I took my MS at UAF.  Except for a change in course number, from EM 694 to ESM 684, the requirement has been unchanged since 1966.

All our ESM students have full-time jobs.  The ESM degrees are not "research degrees" but rather "professional degrees" that witness students' capabilities and qualifications to manage and supervise engineering projects and endeavors.  As such, their "laboratories" are their work environment and their "experiments" are the problems they observe in that environment.  The ESM 684 is a "capstone project" designed to integrate ESM coursework into the solution of a practical management problem.  ESM has had an "industrial advisory committee" since 1980, well before the current ABET requirement that all engineering programs have such committees.  In 2001 the ESM Advisory Committee recommended dropping the project altogether and substituting an additional course.  The faculty (and some of the board members) felt there was value in the project, so we revised the nature of the project to permit greater flexibility and applicability to current management problems.  Today we have two types of project, an individual project that results in a paper, and a group project that results in a public presentation.

The individual projects are posted on the web and are available to the public.  See http://www.uaf.edu/esm/EprojectReports.htm .  A historical list of projects since about 1974 is found at http://www.uaf.edu/esm/projects.html , paper copies of these were sent to the library.

The public presentations are advertised.  The most recent, Public Opinion and It's Effect on Project Planning, A Systems Approach [
http://www.faculty.uaf.edu/ffrap/Presentations/Public%20Opinion%20Presentation.ppt  ]  was attended by 20 people from the professional community.  The first one, Web-based Collaborative Project Management [http://www.faculty.uaf.edu/ffrap/Presentations/ Webbased%20Collaboration.htm ] , was attended by over 40 people from the community.

I don't see how our students would benefit from a 6-credit project compared with a 3-credit project and an additional 3-credit classroom course.  Clearly our advisory committee does not think this would beneficial.  Please let me know if you need more information or if you would like to discuss this in person.

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

FROM STEVE SPARROW, SNRAS

We rarely use the non-thesis option for our MS degree in NRM.  If my memory serves me right, it has been several years since we have had a student in the non-thesis option.  We are currently talking about reviewing our MS program and possibly developing a professional masters program in NRM.  If we do that, we would drop the non-thesis option.  Thus, I don't think anyone here would have strong feelings one way or the other about the 3 vs. 6 credit requirement for research credits.  

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

FROM DAN WHITE, Civil and Environmental Engineering

I would support the motion as written.  Thanks for your work on this.  

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

FROM DOUG REYNOLDS, Resource Economics 

Proposed Change in UAF Policy Regarding Project Credits

Currently UAF has a policy for Master’s graduate students to either take a minimum of six (6) credits of thesis credits or a minimum of six (6) credits of project credits.  I believe the six credit minimum for Projects is too high for our program.

Having a three (3) credit project minimum for 698 project credits rather than a six (6) credit minimum will give economics students a better option for a non-thesis masters degree for the following reasons:

1.)	Flexibility to do a joint masters program with UAA that could lead to a joint PhD program.  We are currently working to create a joint Masters program with UAA, unfortunately they do not have the resources to help much.  If we require a longer 6 credit project, it may make such a joint program impossible to do for them. 

2.)	Having less credits allows a fuller application of economics to other fields.  Our core classes take 18 credits.  If 6 more credits are used for a project, then students can only take three additional classes outside of economics which is not enough for a masters students who wants a masters as a terminal degree and wants to use that degree for applied economics work.  That usually requires additional classes outside of economics and three such classes is not really enough. 

3.)	Projects are practical in natural and are often shorter.  However, they are still usefull for terminal degree students who wish to apply their economics to practical problems.

4.)	A thesis includes a literature review, a development of theory, and an econometric data analysis of a large set of data with a conclusion.  Projects usually do not have a literature review of theory and are more practical with no econometric analysis.  Projects are useful for students who intend to work in agencies where practical problems are dealt with such as the economics of project impacts.

The three credit project still gives enough of a capstone of independent effort to create a deliverable product that shows both the use of economic thought and the use of other fields of study.  To require six credits of project makes it difficult to have enough classes outside of economics to be able to apply economics to another discipline and finish in a reasonable amount of time.  But the three credits of project is still more than a mere class of three credits because it requires independent thought and the use of all the student’s abilities in a specific field.  The independent effort by itself makes a three credit project more than a mere class.

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

FROM JOHN CRAVEN, PHYSICS:

MEMO
24 November 2003

From:		John Craven
		Chair, Physics

To: 		Christa Mulder
		Chair, GAA Committee

Subject: 	MS without thesis programs with less than 6 credits for a project 

I raised this subject at the 20 November 2003 meeting of the physics faculty. From a history lesson provided at that meeting, I learned that the 3-6 hour requirement was submitted because a similar requirement was seen in several other graduate programs. It is the consensus opinion of the physics faculty that 6 hours as stated by the Faculty Senate is fine, and the Physics Department will quite happily increase the requirement to 6 hours should the Faculty Senate retain it. In practice, it is reasonable to expect students using at least 6 hours anyway, so the faculty doesn’t see this current requirement as an impediment to our programs.

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

Community Psychology MA Program perspective
Project Option:  Why 3-6 units instead of 6 + units

The Psychology Department recently submitted a request to have the thesis requirement changed to provide the option of a project.  The reasoning was as follows.  Faculty reviewed our core requirements, the interests of our students and their career paths after graduation.  We came to the consensus that providing students with the choice of a project would meet their educational and career objective more adequately.  More specifically, the majority of our students are more focused on practical applications/service orientation of community/clinical psychology and this lends itself more to a project than a thesis.  Further, many comparable practitioner oriented MA programs at other institutions offer a non-thesis option.  

We conceive of the project as a curricular requirement in which the student plans and executes a novel independent endeavor that results in a product.  Projects do not lend themselves to being done in the format of a thesis but are nonetheless scholarly undertakings.  In our department a project will involve for example:  development of a training manual, program evaluation, or program consultation project.  Some projects could clearly be accomplished within a 3 unit parameter while others could require 6 units.  Students who complete a project in 3 units will have the opportunity to take an additional 3 unit elective.  It is our position that this degree of flexibility best meets students' learning objectives and needs.

ATTACHMENT 123/14
UAF Faculty Senate #123
May 3, 2004
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY APPEALS & OVERSIGHT

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the "Appeals Policy for Academic Decisions Other Than Assignment of Grades" to require that the faculty members who rendered the decision (faculty committee or department chair) review their decision during the informal review process.

EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately

RATIONALE:  	The intent of the Informal review process is for the Provost to request that the original committee or department chair review their academic decision (as is done in grade appeals) to make sure that the decision was not made in error.  The intent was not that one faculty member (e.g. a department chair) could override the findings of another group of faculty (such as a comprehensive examination committee) without consultation.  This amendment calls for the faculty members who rendered the original decision to revisit that decision to determine if it was made in error, or if the decision stands.  The student may then proceed with the formal appeals process.

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

CAPS - Additions
[[  ]] - Deletions

APPEALS POLICY FOR ACADEMIC DECISIONS
Other Than Assignment of Grades

I.  Introduction

The University of Alaska is committed to the ideal of academic freedom and so recognizes that academic decisions [[(i.e., non-admission to or dismissal from any UAF program)]] are a faculty responsibility. Therefore, the University administration shall not unduly influence or affect the review of academic decisions that are a faculty responsibility.

The following procedures are designed to provide a means for students to seek review of academic decisions alleged to be arbitrary and capricious.  THESE ACADEMIC DECISIONS MAY INVOLVE non-admission to or dismissal from any UAF program THAT WERE MADE BY A DEPARTMENT OR PROGRAM THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT CHAIR, OR INVOLVE PASS/FAIL DECISIONS BY A COMMITTEE OF FACULTY ON NON-COURSE EXAMINATIONS  (SUCH AS QUALIFYING, COMPREHENSIVE OR THESIS EXAMINATIONS) OR SATISFACTORY/UNSATISFACTORY EVALUATIONS ON STUDENT REVIEWS (SUCH AS THE ANNUAL REVIEW OF GRADUATE STUDENT PERFORMANCE).  Before taking formal action, a student must attempt to resolve the issue informally. A student who files a written request for review under the following procedures shall be expected to abide by the final disposition of the review, as provided below, and may not seek further review of the matter under any other procedure within the university.

II.  Definitions

A.  As used in the schedule for review of academic decisions, a class day is any day of scheduled instruction, excluding Saturday and Sunday, included on the academic calendar in effect at the time of a review. Final examination periods are counted as class days.

B.  "Department Chair" for the purposes of this policy denotes the administrative head of the academic unit offering the [[course]] PROGRAM (e.g., head, chair or coordinator of an academic department, or division coordinator or program chair if the faculty member is in the College of Rural Alaska).

C.  "COMMITTEE OF FACULTY" for the purposes of this policy denotes the GROUP OF FACULTY WHO RENDERED THE INITIAL DECISION BEING APPEALED.  sUCH GROUPS MAY INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO: GRADUATE EXAMINATION COMMITTEES, GRADUATE ADVISORY COMMITTEES, AND THESIS DEFENSE COMMITTEES.  

[[C.]] D. The "dean/director" is the administrative head of the college or school offering the course or program from which the academic decision or action arises. For students at extended campuses the director of the campus may substitute for the dean/director of the unit offering the course or program.

[[D.]]  E. The next regular semester is the fall or spring semester following that in which the disputed academic decision was made.  For example, it would be the fall semester for a final grade issued for a course completed during the previous spring semester or summer session.  The spring semester is the next regular semester for an academic decision made during the previous fall semester.

III.  Procedures

A.  A student wishing to appeal an academic decision other than a grade assignment must first request an informal review of the decision.

1.  Notification must be received by the Provost within 15 days from the first day of instruction of the semester in which the decision takes effect.

2.  There may be extenuating circumstances when the deadlines cannot be met due to illness, mail disruption, or other situations over which the student may have no control. In such a case, upon request from the student, the Provost, after review of supporting documentation provided by the student, may adjust the deadlines accordingly. An extension of the deadline will be limited to one semester but every effort should be made to complete the appeal process within the current semester.

3.  IN CASES WHERE THE DECISION WAS RENDERED BY A COMMITTEE OF FACULTY (SUCH AS THOSE DEALING WITH GRADUATE EXAMINATIONS AND EVALUATIONS), THE PROVOST WILL REQUEST THE APPROPRIATE COMMITTEE TO CONDUCT AN INFORMAL REVIEW OF THEIR DECISION.  THE COMMITTEE OF FACULTY WILL DETERMINE WHETHER THEIR ORIGINAL DECISION SHOULD BE OVERTURNED OR CHANGED IN ANY WAY.  THE COMMITTEE OF FACULTY WILL SUBMIT THEIR RECOMMENDATION TO THE PROVOST THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT CHAIR AND DEAN/DIRECTOR WITHIN 10 DAYS. 

[[3.]] 4.  IN ALL OTHER MATTERS, The Provost will request the appropriate department chair to conduct an informal review of the decision. The Department chair will determine whether the original decision should be overturned or changed in any way. The department chair will submit his/her recommendation to the provost through the dean/director within 10 days. In the event that the department chair is directly involved, the provost can ask the dean/director to conduct an informal review and submit his/her recommendations directly to him.

[[4.]] 5. The Provost will consult with the student on the COMMITTEE OF FACULTY'S OR department chair's recommendation. If the student does not find that recommendation acceptable, he/she may request the Provost to conduct a formal review.

ATTACHMENT 123/15
UAF Faculty Senate #123
May 3, 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.

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

4/19/04

University of Alaska Fairbanks

Regulations for the
Appointment and Evaluation of Faculty

AND
DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY UNIT CRITERIA
STANDARDS AND INDICES

THE FOLLOWING IS AN ADAPTATION OF UAF AND REGENTS CRITERIA FOR PROMOTION AND TENURE, SPECIFICALLY DEVELOPED FOR USE IN EVALUATING THE FACULTY IN THE DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY.  ITEMS IN BOLDFACE ITALICS ARE THOSE SPECIFICALLY ADDED OR EMPHASIZED BECAUSE OF THEIR RELEVANCE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY FACULTY, AND BECAUSE THEY ARE ADDITIONS TO AND CLARIFICATION OF UAF REGULATIONS.  THESE UNIT CRITERIA ARE FOR USE IN THE ANNUAL EVALUATION OF FACULTY AS WELL.

Chapter I

Purview

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

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

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

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

Chapter II

Initial Appointment of Faculty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter III

Periodic Evaluation of Faculty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

h.	CURATORS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA MUSEUM WITH A FACULTY APPOINTMENT IN ANTHROPOLOGY TYPICALLY HAVE A PORTION OF THEIR WORKLOAD ASSIGNED TO THE DEPARTMENT.  THE DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY WILL EVALUATE THE CURATOR'S TEACHING RECORD.

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

a.	systematic student ratings, i.e. student opinion of instruction summary forms,

and at least two of the following:

b.	narrative self-evaluation,

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

d.	peer/department chair evaluation of course materials.

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

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

a.	They must occur in a public forum.
b.	They must be evaluated by appropriate peers.
c.	They must be evaluated by peers external to this institution so as to allow an objective judgment.

d.	They must be judged to make a contribution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

f.	Editing or refereeing articles or proposals for professional journals or organizations.

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

h.	Citations of research in scholarly publications.

i.	Published abstracts of research papers.

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

k.	Prizes and awards for excellence of scholarship.

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

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

n.	ALL PEER-REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS SHALL BE CONSIDERED SIGNIFICANT.  THIS INCLUDES NOT ONLY THE WRITING OF JOURNAL ARTICLES AND BOOK CHAPTERS BUT THE EDITING OF BOOK AND JOURNAL VOLUMES.

o.	MULTIPLE-AUTHORED, PEER-REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS SHALL BE EVALUATED IN TERMS OF THE AUTHOR'S CONTRIBUTION, TO BE DELINEATED IN THE NARRATIVE STATEMENT OF THE PROMOTION AND TENURE FILE.

p.	RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS AS EDITOR OF VOLUMES OF THE APUA (ANTHROPOLOGY PAPERS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA) SHALL BE CONSIDERED COMPARABLE TO RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS AS EDITOR OF OTHER PEER REVIEWED BOOKS AND JOURNAL VOLUMES.

q.	CURATORS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA MUSEUM WITH A FACULTY APPOINTMENT IN ANTHROPOLOGY TYPICALLY HAVE A PORTION OF THEIR WORKLOAD ASSIGNED TO THE DEPARTMENT.  THE DEPARTMENT WILL EVALUATE THE CURATOR'S RECORD OF RESEARCH.
	
D.	Criteria for Public and University Service
Public service is intrinsic to the land grant/sea grant/space grant tradition, and is a fundamental part of the university's obligation to the people of its state.  In this tradition, faculty providing their professional expertise for the benefit of the university's external constituency, free of charge, is identified as "public service."  The tradition of the university itself provides that its faculty assumes a collegial obligation for the internal functioning of the institution; such service is identified as "university service."

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

a.	Providing information services to adults or youth.

b.	Service on or to government or public committees.

c.	Service on accrediting bodies.

d.	Active participation in professional organizations.

e.	Active participation in discipline-oriented service organizations.

f.	Consulting.

g.	Prizes and awards for excellence in public service.

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

i.	Training and facilitating.

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

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

l.	APPLIED ANTHROPOLOGICAL WORK WITH COMMUNITIES AND ORGANIZATIONS.

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

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

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

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

d.	Participation in accreditation reviews.

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

f.	Service in support of student organizations and activities.

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

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

i.	Mentoring.

j.	Prizes and awards for excellence in university service.

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

CURATORS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA MUSEUM WITH A FACULTY APPOINTMENT IN ANTHROPOLOGY TYPICALLY HAVE A PORTION OF THEIR TIME ASSIGNED TO THE DEPARTMENT.  THE DEPARTMENT WILL EVALUATE THE CURATOR'S RECORD OF SERVICE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA MUSEUM COMMITTEE (SEE BELOW).

Curation

CURATORS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA MUSEUM (UAM) CAN HOLD A TENURE-TRACK FACULTY POSITION.  RANK AND TENURE ARE HELD WITHIN DEPARTMENTS AT UAF, AND CURATORS ARE THUS TREATED AS JOINT APPOINTMENTS BETWEEN A DEPARTMENT AND UAM.  AS IS THE CASE FOR ALL TENURE-TRACK FACULTY IN THE DEPARTMENT OF  ANTHROPOLOGY, CURATOR'S PERFORMANCES ARE EVALUATED ON THE BASIS OF THEIR ACTIVITIES IN TEACHING, RESEARCH AND SERVICE.

1.	CURATION INVOLVES THE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT OF A FORMALLY RECOGNIZED UNIVERSITY COLLECTION THAT EXISTS TO SERVE AS A RESEARCH RESOURCE FOR STUDENTS AND RESEARCHERS AT UNIVERSITY, STATE, NATIONAL, AND INTERNATIONAL LEVELS.  EXAMPLES OF CURATORIAL ACTIVITIES INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO:

a.	MAINTAINING, ENHANCING, AND ENLARGING THE COLLECTION (INCLUDES COMPUTERIZATION AND DATABASE DEVELOPMENT, ARCHIVAL UPGRADES, SPECIMEN CONSERVATION AND IDENTIFICATION, AND ADDING SPECIMENS OR OBJECTS TO EXISTING COLLECTION);

b.	INTERACTING WITH STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND WITH THE PUBLIC ON COLLECTIONS-RELATED ISSUES;

c.	FACILITATING COLLECTIONS USE THROUGH LOANS, EXCHANGES, AND VISITING RESEARCHERS;

d.	MAINTAINING APPROPRIATE PERMITS (AS NEEDED FOR THE COLLECTIONS);

e.	SUPERVISING COLLECTIONS MANAGERS, STUDENT EMPLOYEES, AND VOLUNTEERS;

f.	WORKING WITH PUBLIC PROGRAM STAFF TO CREATE EXHIBITS AND EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES APPROPRIATE TO THE COLLECTION;

g.	PURSUING FUNDING FOR COLLECTIONS GROWTH AND MAINTENANCE; AND

h.	PRODUCING CURATORIAL OR COLLECTIONS-RELATED PUBLICATIONS, REPORTS, AND/OR MANUALS.

i.	ENSURING UNIVERSITY COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS THAT PERTAIN TO THE COLLECTION.

2.	SPECIFIC CRITERIA FOR CURATORIAL PERFORMANCE:

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR AND CURATOR

EVIDENCE OF CURATORIAL ABILITY AND A COMMITMENT TO DEVELOPING AND MANAGING RESEARCH COLLECTIONS RELEVANT TO THE AREA OF SPECIALIZATION INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING:

1.	CURATORS WILL DEVELOP THE COLLECTIONS AS A PERMANENT RECORD OF THE NATURAL AND/OR CULTURAL DIVERSITY OF ALASKA AND THE CIRCUMPOLAR NORTH AND AS A RESEARCH RESOURCE FOR STUDIES OF BIOLOGICAL AND/OR CULTURAL DIVERSITY.

2.	COLLECTIONS CARE INCLUDES RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PHYSICAL CONDITION AND STORAGE OF OBJECTS/SPECIMENS, CORRESPONDING DOCUMENTATION, BUDGETARY MANAGEMENT, AND ANNUAL REPORTS.

3.	CURATORS WILL PRESERVE THE SPECIMENS, ARTIFACTS, OBJECTS, AND MATERIAL UNDER THEIR PURVIEW THROUGH THE USE OF METHODS AND TECHNIQUES PROFESSIONALLY ACCEPTED WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE DISCIPLINES.

4.	CURATORS WILL ENSURE THAT ALL RECORDS AND FIELD NOTES CONCERNING COLLECTION MATERIALS ARE MAINTAINED IN A SECURE FASHION AND MEET OR EXCEED DOCUMENTATION STANDARDS FOR THEIR RESPECTIVE DISCIPLINE.

5.	CURATORS WILL MAINTAIN CURRENT ACCESSION FILES, DEACCESSION FILES, AND CATALOGUES OF OBJECTS IN THEIR COLLECTIONS. THEY WILL DEVELOP ELECTRONIC DATABASES WITH COMPUTER DATA FORMATS THAT FOLLOW DATA STANDARDS OF THE RESPECTIVE DISCIPLINE AND UAM. 

6.	CURATORS WILL DEVELOP, MAINTAIN, AND REVISE WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR CAUTION OF OBJECTS OR SPECIMENS IN THEIR COLLECTIONS.

7.	CURATORS WILL TAKE PART IN INTERPRETIVE ACTIVITIES OF THE MUSEUM IN ORDER TO FULFILL THE MUSEUM'S MISSION TO INTERPRET THE NATURAL AND CULTURAL HISTORY OF ALASKA. IN THIS REGARD, PREPARATION OF SMALL EXHIBIT IS APPROXIMATELY THE EQUIVALENTS OF PUBLICATION OF A PROFESSIONAL ARTICLE; PROJECT DIRECTION OF A LARGE COMPLEX EXHIBIT THAT INCLUDES PREPARATION OF A SERIOUS CATALOGUE IS APPROXIMATELY THE EQUIVALENT OF PUBLICATION OF A SCHOLARLY BOOK.

8.	CURATORS WILL ACTIVELY PREPARE GRANT APPLICATIONS FOR EXTERNAL SUPPORT FOR THEIR CURATORIAL ACTIVITIES AND COLLECTION-BASED RESEARCH.

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AND CURATOR

CONSISTENT CONTRIBUTIONS TO INTERPRETIVE (EDUCATION AND EXHIBITION) ACTIVITIES OF THE MUSEUM, RESPONSE TO COLLECTION-RELATED INQUIRIES (FROM OTHER PROFESSIONALS, THE PUBLIC AND STATE AGENCIES) AND/OR DEVELOPMENT OF INTERPRETIVE MATERIALS FOR THE PUBLIC-AT-LARGE ARE EXPECTED. USE OF THE COLLECTIONS FOR TEACHING AND/OR RESEARCH MUST BE EVIDENT. ACTIVE SOLICITATION FOR EXTERNAL FUNDS TO SUPPORT CURATORIAL ACTIVITIES AND COLLECTION-BASED RESEARCH MUST BE EVIDENT.

PROFESSOR AND CURATOR

SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT OF THE COLLECTIONS UNDER THE CURATOR'S CARE IS EXPECTED.  THIS DEVELOPMENT INCLUDES SUSTAINED GROWTH OF THE COLLECTIONS AS RESEARCH RESOURCES AND AS A MEANS OF FULFILLING THE MUSEUM'S MISSION OF ACQUIRING, PRESERVING IN PERPETUITY, INVESTIGATING, AND INTERPRETING OBJECTS AND SPECIMENS RELATING TO THE NATURAL AND OR CULTURAL HISTORY OF ALASKA AND THE CIRCUMPOLAR NORTH.  SIGNIFICANCE OF COLLECTIONS WILL BE MEASURED IN TERMS OF RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE, VALUE TO UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA RESEARCH AND INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS, AND VALUE TO NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH PROGRAMS.  THE CURATOR SHOULD BE A RECOGNIZED AUTHORITY IN HIS/HER FIELD, LOCALLY AND NATIONALLY.  THEY MUST HAVE A RECORD OF SUCCESS IN ACQUIRING EXTERNAL FUNDS FOR THEIR CURATORIAL ACTIVITIES AND COLLECTION-BASED RESEARCH. 

3.	EVALUATION OF CURATION

A COMMITTEE COMPOSED OF THE TENURED CURATORS AT THE MUSEUM WILL PROVIDE AN EVALUATION TO THE UNIT PEER COMMITTEE.  IN FORMULATING CRITERIA, STANDARDS AND INDICES FOR EVALUATION, PROMOTION, AND TENURE, THE MUSEUM SHOULD INCLUDE EXAMPLES OF CURATORIAL ACTIVITIES AND MEASURES FOR EVALUATION APPROPRIATE FOR THAT UNIT.  EXCELLENCE IN CURATION MAY BE DEMONSTRATED THROUGH, E.G., APPROPRIATE LETTER OF COMMENDATION, RECOMMENDATION, AND/OR APPRECIATION, CERTIFICATES AND AWARDS, AND OTHER PUBLIC MEANS OF RECOGNITION FOR SERVICES RENDERED.

ATTACHMENT 123/16
UAF Faculty Senate #123
May 3, 2004
SUBMITTED BY AD HOC COMMITTEE ON UNIT CRITERIA

MOTION:
======

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

	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately
				Upon Chancellor Approval

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

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

4/23/04

University of Alaska Fairbanks

Regulations for the
Appointment and Evaluation of Faculty

AND

DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES
UNIT CRITERIA STANDARDS AND INDICES

THE FOLLOWING IS AN ADAPTATION OF UAF AND REGENTS' CRITERIA FOR PROMOTION AND TENURE, SPECIFICALLY DEVELOPED FOR USE IN EVALUATING DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES (DMS) FACULTY IN THE COLLEGE OF SCIENCES, ENGINEERING AND MATHEMATICS.  ITEMS IN BOLDFACE ARE THOSE SPECIFICALLY ADDED OR EMPHASIZED BECAUSE OF THEIR ADDITIONS TO AND CLARIFICATION OF UAF REGULATIONS.  THESE UNIT CRITERIA ARE FOR USE IN THE ANNUAL EVALUATION OF DMS FACULTY AS WELL.

CHAPTER I

PURVIEW

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

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

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

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

CHAPTER II

INITIAL APPOINTMENT OF FACULTY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAPTER III

PERIODIC EVALUATION OF FACULTY

A.	General Criteria  
Criteria as outlined in "UAF Faculty Appointment and Evaluation Policies," Chapter IV, AND DMS UNIT CRITERIA, STANDARDS AND INDICES evaluators may consider, but shall not be limited to, whichever of the following are appropriate to the faculty member's professional obligation:  mastery of subject matter; effectiveness in teaching; achievement in research, scholarly, and creative activity; effectiveness of public service; effectiveness of university service; demonstration of professional development and quality of total contribution to the university.  IN EACH AREA CANDIDATES WILL BE RANKED BY THE DMS PEER REVIEW COMMITTEE (PRC).  THE PRC CONSISTS OF ALL TENURED MEMBERS OF THE DMS.  MEMBERS OF THE PRC WHO ARE ON SABBATICAL OR OFF CAMPUS FOR EXTENDED PERIODS HAVE THE OPTION OF PARTICIPATING, BUT THIS IS NOT REQUIRED.  CANDIDATES WILL BE RANKED IN EACH CATEGORY ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOWING SCALE: OUTSTANDING, SUPERIOR, SATISFACTORY, NEEDS IMPROVEMENT AND UNACCEPTABLE.

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

1.  TENURE.  A CANDIDATE FOR TENURE WILL BE JUDGED ON THE BASIS OF PERFORMANCE AND INDICATIONS OF POTENTIAL IN ALL THREE CATEGORIES, WITH EMPHASIS PLACED ON THE INTERVAL SINCE THE LAST PROMOTION OR HIRE, WHICHEVER IS MOST RECENT.  A CANDIDATE NEED NOT DEMONSTRATE EQUAL PERFORMANCE IN ALL THREE AREAS.  IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR TENURE, A FACULTY MEMBER SHOULD NORMALLY HAVE SERVED FOR AT LEAST FIVE YEARS AT THE RANK OF ASSISTANT PROFESSOR.  A CANDIDATE SHOULD NORMALLY ATTAIN AT LEAST A SATISFACTORY RATING IN TEACHING, RESEARCH AND SERVICE AND AT LEAST SUPERIOR IN TEACHING OR RESEARCH.  

2. ASSISTANT PROFESSOR.  A FACULTY MEMBER AT THE ASSISTANT PROFESSOR LEVEL MUST HAVE AN EARNED DOCTO˛RATE OR DEMONSTRATED EQUIVALENT.   DEMONSTRATED EQUIVALENCE WILL BE DECIDED ON AN AD HOC BASIS BY THE PRC.  A COMMITMENT TO TEACHING, RESEARCH AND SERVICE MUST BE APPARENT.

3.  ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR.  AN ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SHOULD NORMALLY HAVE SERVED AT LEAST FIVE YEARS AT THE RANK OF ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OR HIGHER.  A RECORD OF QUALITY INSTRUCTION AND RESEARCH IS IMPORTANT.  THE DMS RECOGNIZES THAT AT THIS LEVEL SERVICE IS SECONDARY TO TEACHING AND RESEARCH.  YOUNG FACULTY CAN PROFITABLY SPEND THEIR TIME ESTABLISHING A RESEARCH RECORD AND PERFECTING TEACHING TECHNIQUE.  IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR THE RANK OF ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, A FACULTY MEMBER SHOULD, UNDER NORMAL CONDITIONS, HAVE MET THE REQUIREMENTS DESCRIBED FOR TENURE.

4.  PROFESSOR.  THIS IS THE GREATEST SINGLE HONOR THAT THE UNIVERSITY CAN BESTOW UPON A MEMBER OF ITS FACULTY.  THE HONOR MUST THEREFOR BE MADE UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE CANDIDATE'S TOTAL DEMONSTRATED CONTRIBUTION TO THE UNIVERSITY AND THE MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES.  THE HONOR IS RESERVED FOR THOSE WHO HAVE DEMONSTRATED OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE IN THEIR FIELDS.  SPECIFICALLY, A CANDIDATE MUST HAVE ATTAINED AN OVERALL AVERAGE RANKING OF SUPERIOR IN TEACHING, RESEARCH AND SERVICE, WITH NO AREA LOWER THAN SATISFACTORY.  ADDITIONALLY, IF ONE OF RESEARCH OR TEACHING IS RANKED SATISFACTORY, THE OTHER MUST BE OUTSTANDING.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

H.  DEMANDS HIGH PEDAGOGIC STANDARDS ESSENTIAL TO THE DEPARTMENT’S MISSION.  THIS INCLUDES A DEMAND FOR EXCELLENCE AND AWARENESS OF STUDENTS’ NEEDS.

I.  DISSEMINATION OF IDEAS INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE CLASSROOM.  THIS INCLUDES, BUT IS NOT RESTRICTED TO, STATISTICAL AND COMPUTING CONSULTING FOR STUDENTS; ASSISTING STUDENTS IN THE DESIGN OF EXPERIMENTS; DIRECTING UNDERGRADUATE AND GRADUATE RESEARCH.

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

a.	systematic student ratings, i.e. student opinion of instruction summary forms,

and at least two of the following:

b.	narrative self-evaluation,

c.	peer/department chair classroom observation(s). THIS IS REQUIRED FOR UNTENURED FACULTY.  THEY WILL BE EVALUATED BY THE PRC (WHICH INCLUDES THE DEPARTMENT HEAD AS A NONVOTING MEMBER).  THIS COMMITTEE WILL SEND REPRESENTATIVES TO EVALUATE CLASSROOM PERFORMANCE AS WELL AS SYLLABI AND SAMPLES OF GRADED MATERIAL.  REPRESENTATIVES WILL WRITE A REPORT WHICH INCLUDES A NARRATIVE PORTION AS WELL AS AN OVERALL RANKING OF TEACHING WHICH USES THE SCALE: OUTSTANDING, SUPERIOR, SATISFACTORY, NEEDS IMPROVEMENT, UNACCEPTABLE.   UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, WHEN A FACULTY MEMBER STANDS FOR TENURE, REPORTS FROM AT LEAST TWO YEARS SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE FILE.  IN THE CASE OF DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN PEER OPINIONS AND STUDENT OPINIONS, THE FORMER WILL BE CONSIDERED TO BE MORE ACCURATE.

d.	peer/department chair evaluation of course materials.

C.	Criteria for Research, Scholarly, and Creative Activity  
Inquiry and originality are central functions of a land grant/sea grant/space grant university and all faculty with a research component in their assignment must remain active as scholars.  Consequently, faculty are expected to conduct research or engage in other scholarly or creative pursuits that are appropriate to the mission of their unit, and equally important, results of their work must be disseminated through media appropriate to their discipline.  Furthermore, it is important to emphasize the distinction between routine production and creative excellence as evaluated by an individual's peers at the University of Alaska and elsewhere. CANDIDATES AT ALL LEVELS MUST DEMONSTRATE ACHIEVEMENT CONDUCTING RESEARCH IN AN INDEPENDENT AND CREATIVE FASHION.  WORK WILL BE JUDGED FOR IMPORTANCE, ORIGINALITY AND QUALITY.  CONSIDERATION WILL INCLUDE, BUT NOT BE RESTRICTED TO, THE CANDIDATE’S PAPERS PUBLISHED IN REFEREED JOURNALS AND REFEREED CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS, PAPERS, LECTURES AND PRESENTATIONS DELIVERED, OTHER PAPERS AND TECHNICAL REPORTS, BOOKS, RESEARCH PROPOSALS, SOFTWARE DEVELOPED AND RESEARCH DONE THROUGH CONSULTING.  THE WORK MUST BE PRESENTED IN A PUBLIC FORUM WHERE ITS CONTRIBUTION CAN BE JUDGED BY PEERS EXTERNAL TO UAF.  THE RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS FOUND IN A BOOK WILL BE BASED ON THE EXPOSITION OF NEW IDEAS.  BOOKS WHICH ONLY GATHER MATERIAL FOUND IN OTHER LOCATIONS WILL BE CONSIDERED TO BE EXPOSITORY AND NOT RESEARCH DOCUMENTS.

THE DEPARTMENT EXPECTS FACULTY WITH A 30% RESEARCH LOAD TO BE PUBLISHING AT A RATE OF APPROXIMATELY ONE PAPER PER YEAR.  AT A 50% LEVEL OR ABOVE THERE SHOULD BE APPROXIMATELY TWO.  HOWEVER, IT SHOULD BE EMPHASIZED THAT THIS IS ONLY AN APPROXIMATE GOAL.  THE MORE IMPORTANT GOAL IS QUALITY RESEARCH.   HIGH QUALITY RESEARCH CAN BE PRODUCED AND DISSEMINATED IN SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES AT A LOWER RATE.  ACCORDINGLY, CANDIDATES SHOULD NOT TRY TO MEET A RESEARCH TARGET IN TERMS OF NUMBER OF PAPERS PUBLISHED.  FURTHER, HEAVY PRODUCTION RATES OF LOW QUALITY PUBLICATIONS IS DISCOURAGED.

A CANDIDATE'S PUBLICATION AND FUNDING RECORD SHOULD BE COMPARED WITH INDIVIDUALS IN THE SAME OR RELATED DISCIPLINES.  THE PRACTICE OF LISTING COAUTHORS WHO HAVE CONTRIBUTED LITTLE TO A PUBLICATION IS UNCOMMON IN THE MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES.  NORMALLY, EACH COAUTHOR WILL HAVE MADE A SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION.  COAUTHORS ARE OFTEN LISTED ALPHABETICALLY.

CERTAIN DISCIPLINES FOUND IN MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES HAVE LITTLE OPPORTUNITY IN THE WAY OF EXTERNAL FUNDING.  ACCORDINGLY, THE ABILITY TO FIND FUNDING SPEAKS WELL FOR A CANDIDATE AT ANY LEVEL.  HOWEVER, ABSENCE OF FUNDING MAY NOT NECESSARILY SPEAK AGAINST THE CANDIDATE.   DMS DOES NOT CONSIDER THE FUNDING OF GRANT PROPOSALS TO BE THE GOAL OF ANY RESEARCH PROJECT.  RATHER, WE FOCUS ON WHAT IS ACHIEVED WITH OR WITHOUT RESEARCH FUNDING.

TO SUMMARIZE, THE PRIMARY RESEARCH METRIC IS NOT NUMBER OF PUBLICATIONS NOR GRANT MONEY.  IT IS RESEARCH RESULTS AS MEASURED BY QUALITY, DEPTH AND ORIGINALITY.

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

a.	They must occur in a public forum.
b.	They must be evaluated by appropriate peers.
c.	They must be evaluated by peers external to this institution so as to allow an objective judgment.

d.	They must be judged to make a contribution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

g.	Editing or refereeing articles or proposals for professional journals or organizations.

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

h.	Citations of research in scholarly publications.

i.	Published abstracts of research papers.

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

k.	Prizes and awards for excellence of scholarship.

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

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

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

1.	Public Service 
Public service is the application of teaching, research, and other scholarly and creative activity to constituencies outside the University of Alaska Fairbanks.  It includes all activities which extend the faculty member's professional, academic, or leadership competence to these constituencies.  It can be instructional, collaborative, or consultative in nature and is related to the faculty member's discipline or other publicly recognized expertise.  Public service may be systematic activity that involves planning with clientele and delivery of information on a continuing, programmatic basis.  It may also be informal, individual, professional contributions to the community or to one's discipline, or other activities in furtherance of the goals and mission of the university and its units. Such service may occur on a periodic or limited-term basis.  

PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INCLUDES, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO, CONSULTING ON AND OFF CAMPUS, REFEREEING, JOURNAL WORK, SERVICE TO NATIONAL PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, ORGANIZING CONFERENCES, IN-SERVICE TRAINING PROGRAMS, GIVING COLLOQUIUM LECTURES, REVIEWING PROPOSALS AND BOOKS.  

Examples include, but are not limited to:

a.	Providing information services to adults or youth.

b.	Service on or to government or public committees.

c.	Service on accrediting bodies.

d.	Active participation in professional organizations.

e.	Active participation in discipline-oriented service organizations.

f.	Consulting.

g.	Prizes and awards for excellence in public service.

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

i.	Training and facilitating.

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

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

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

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

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

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

d.	Participation in accreditation reviews.

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

f.	Service in support of student organizations and activities.

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

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

i.	Mentoring OF FACULTY.

j.	Prizes and awards for excellence in university service.

k.	K. SERVICE AS OUTSIDE REVIEWER ON THESIS COMMITTEES.

l.	L. PREPARATION OF UNIVERSITY REPORTS.

m.	M. PRESENTATION OF EXPOSITORY MATERIAL INCLUDING SOME TEXTBOOKS.

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

ATTACHMENT 123/17
UAF Faculty Senate #123
May 3, 2004
SUBMITTED BY AD HOC COMMITTEE ON UNIT CRITERIA

MOTION:
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the UAF "Regulation for the Appointment and Evaluation of Faculty" as follows:

CAPS - Addition
[[   ]] - Deletion

Pg. 6
2. Components of Research, Scholarly and Creative Activity

[[f. Editing or refereeing articles or proposals for professional journals or organizations.]]

Pg. 8.
Insert after category 2. University Service but before 3. Evaluation of Service

3. PROFESSIONAL SERVICE

A.	EDITING OR REFEREEING ARTICLES OR PROPOSALS FOR PROFESSIONAL JOURNALS OR ORGANIZATIONS;

B.   ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IN PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS;

C.   ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IN DISCIPLINE-ORIENTED SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS;

D.   COMMITTEE CHAIR OR OFFICER OF PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS;

E.	ORGANIZER, SESSION ORGANIZER, OR MODERATOR FOR PROFESSIONAL MEETINGS;

F.	SERVICE ON A NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL REVIEW PANEL OR COMMITTEE.

	EFFECTIVE:   	Immediately

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

	The UAF Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Unit Criteria has found aspects of the UAF document "Faculty Appointment and Evaluation Policies" unclear, inconsistent with current University practice, and of less than optimal utility.

	There is currently inconsistency in how the Blue Book breaks down the category of Service and how it is treated in our annual reporting for the University. In the "Blue Book", Service consists of two parts: Public Service and University Service. In our annual reports, we must also indicate activities that constitute Professional Service. We believe it is appropriate to modify the "Blue Book" to reflect the way we are required to report our activities under the heading of Service so that all three types of service are included. Doing so will streamline the process of preparing a tenure or promotion file and allow faculty to more precisely categorize our activities in the evaluation process.

	Under the current guidelines, activities such as reviewing grant proposals for funding agencies, serving as a referee for peer-reviewed journals, and serving as editor of a journal are categorized as research and creative activity.  Discussions with faculty members at UAF and other institutions clearly indicate that these activities are more appropriately categorized under Professional Service. We propose to change such activities from being counted as Research and Creative Activities to examples of Professional Service. Activities such as authoring an edited book will continue to be counted as research and creative activities.

ATTACHMENT 123/18
UAF Faculty Senate #123
May 3, 2004
SUBMITTED BY GRADUATE ACADEMIC & ADVISORY COMMITTEE

GAAC Meeting, April 2 2004, 3:30-4:30 p.m.

Present: R. Barry, A. Dandekar, M. Erhlander,  G. Gregory, S. Henrichs , C. Koverola, M. Murray,  J. Ma, C. Mulder,  D. Reynolds, T. Stickel.

1.	We discussed minimum requirements for a course syllabus.  There was general agreement that we did not want to impose a whole lot of restrictions on syllabi, and that the main reason behind the discussion was to reduce the number of course requests that had to be returned for further information.  A reasonable minimum scheme includes a syllabus with hours taught, grading scheme, and, for stacked courses, differences between 400- and 600- level which should be reflected in different grading schemes.  Christa will work on a simple checklist that can be put at the top of the current course request forms.

2.	The following course was approved:
Biol 694 /WLF 694: Faculty graduate student seminar (1 +0 credits), first offered Fall 2004.

3.	The following course was discussed and held pending additional information:  Biol. 494/694: Population genetics, 4 credits, first offered Spring 2005.  The instructor will confer with the dept head to see whether this can be offered at just the 600-level.

4.	Susan Henrichs presented a request from the Physics Dept., which wants students who are currently in the M.S. program and are applying to the Ph.D. program to be able to skip the standard application process and fee, and simply have a short form completed with signatures from four people (most likely primarily from the current committee).  The rationale is that there is little review necessary because the students are already in the program, and the graduate school has little to do because all references, transcripts etc. already exist.  This suggestion was received with little enthusiasm by the committee.  It was pointed out that this meant that other faculty in the department would have little knowledge of who was applying, that being in an MS program did not necessarily mean there would be general approval for the Ph.D. program, and that there was no room on the form for the kinds of comments normally expected from faculty members reviewing the form.  On the other hand, there was some sympathy for reducing or eliminating the application fee.  We agreed to have Susan request such a change from the graduate school but denied the request to change the application process.

5.	New course proposal requests were handed out, to be discussed at the next meeting.

The next meeting is scheduled for April 16.

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

Annual Report of the Graduate Academic and Advisory Committee (GAAC), 2003-2004
April 26, 2004.

Submitted by Christa Mulder, Chair.
Members: Abhijit Dandekar, Doug Reynolds, Rolf Gradinger (interim chair), Mary Ehrlander, Maureen Hogan, Maribeth Murray,  John Ma, Christa Mulder (chair), Robert Nicholson (student), Catherine Koverola, Jennifer Reynolds

Ex-officio: Dennis Stephens, Susan Henrichs, Timothy Stickel, Gayle Gregory.

1.	Courses reviewed.
a.	Fall 2003: 1 600-level and 2 stacked trial courses, 35 600-level and 15 stacked standard courses.
b.	Spring 2004: 3 600-level and 1 stacked trial course, 9 600-level  and 5 stacked standard courses.  

2.	Motions forwarded to the Faculty Senate
a.	Motion on Graduate Student Registration in stacked courses.
This motion was developed because some graduate students enrolled in stacked 400/600 courses at the undergraduate level, and we felt this was not the intent of stacking courses.  It was presented at the Faculty Senate meeting on October 27 and was defeated.

b.	Motion on Minimum Number of Credits for the MS or MA with Project
This motion was developed because the university catalogue states that for non-thesis master’s degrees, the project should have a minimum of 6 credits, yet approx. 10 degree programs have a minimum of 3 credits.  This motion was presented at the Faculty Senate meeting on October 27 and was returned to the committee for further supporting documentation and justification.  It will be presented again at the May 3 meeting.

c.	Motion on Maintaining Status in the Graduate Program.
This motion was developed because of a lack of definition of  “good status” for graduate students, and the lack of a consistent procedure for dismissing students from the program.  Definitions were also requested by the foreign student office, since Federal regulations require all students who are not “in good standing” to be reported and deported.   It was presented at the Faculty Senate meeting on 8 December and was passed by unanimous vote.

d.  Motion to set a cap on the number of credits that can be taken in a single semester without additional approvals.  This motion grew out of case of a student who signed up for >30 credits in a single semester.  The goal of the motion was to make it comparable to the overload requirements at the undergraduate level and require department head approval for > 15 credits and dean of the college plus dean of the graduate school approval for >19 credits. It will be presented at the May 3 meeting.

3.	Other issues addressed.
a.  Use of tuition waivers for courses not directly related to the graduate study plan.  We decided, after extensive discussion, that this was not a large enough issue to really need regulations, and that policing it would be difficult.    Furthermore, preventing students from taking these courses under the tuition waver was useless to increase university revenues, since students would most likely simply not take the course.  We also felt that some courses (e.g. yoga) might increase retention and performance of students.  We decided that this decision should remain under the control of the committee chairs (as it is at the moment), and no further action was taken.

b.	Changing the deadlines for graduate applications to be received in the graduate school office.  This was suggested by the graduate school because they currently have a very difficult time processing applications in time for admittance (and often fail to do so).  Furthermore, because of the slow processing good applicants often get and accept offers from other universities long before UAF accepts the application.  The GAAC fully supported this idea (with the proviso that students should still be allowed to apply late if they wished, they just couldn’t be guaranteed that their applications would be processed in time).  We tentatively agreed to move the date for Fall admissions to June 1 (from August 1).

c.	Minimum criteria for syllabi.  Course proposals are generally returned to faculty for one of a few reasons.  We discussed setting minimum requirements for syllabi, as the undergraduate committee has been doing.  We felt that graduate level courses did not require a lot of rules to be followed, and that instead we would add a very short checklist to the course proposal form, reminding faculty that the a syllabus must be attached, that the number of hours per week that the course will meet must be indicated, that an explicit grading scheme must be included, and that stacked courses must included separate grading schemes for the two levels.  The purpose of these requirements is to ensure that the course can be evaluated by us, not to dictate the content of the syllabus.  Similarly, although we approve of the efforts to improve the quality and consistency of the undergraduate syllabi, we felt the rules developed for undergraduate courses were too stringent, inflexible, and unnecessary for graduate level courses.  

d.	Regulatory information on the graduate study plan (GSP).  Often graduate students work with animals or with hazardous chemicals, which requires prior approval from a campus-wide committee.  To ensure that students (and their committee members) are aware of these requirements, it was suggested by Susan Henrichs and the Research Integrity Office that a short checklist be added to the GSP, with links to additional information available on the web.  This was unanimously approved by the committee and the information will be added.  

e.	Requirements of the ADA were discussed with respect to providing modifications for students who need them, and Susan Henrichs provided information on what is considered “reasonable accomodation”, and recommendations for listing requirements in the syllabus.

f.	Allowing applicants to the Ph.D.  program who are currently in an MS program to bypass the standard application program.  This request was put forward by the Physics department, which wanted students to simply be able to obtain signatures from four people to be admitted to the program, without the application passing through the graduate school (and without an application fee being paid).  Given the lack of evaluation (or even knowledge of) the applicants by the department as a whole, and the lack of comments that would be provided, the GAAC turned down this request.  However, the GAAC was somewhat sympathetic to the concept of reducing or eliminating the fees, and left this to Susan to negotiate.

4.	Issues likely to appear on the agenda next year.
a.	More problems remain with the procedures for dismissing graduate students.  One problem is the appeal process: procedures are not well defined, and as it stands foreign graduate students cannot really appeal because if they are not in good standing they are, by Federal law, required to leave the country immediately.  This issue needs to be re-addressed.

b.	The syllabus requirements issue is bound to come back up…

ATTACHMENT 123/19
UAF Faculty Senate #123
May 3, 2004
SUBMITTED BY CORE REVIEW

Annual Report Core Review Committee
Highlight of activities 2003-'04

Members: Derek Burleson (ENGL), Jin Brown (COMM), Jill Faudree (MATH), Mary Goodwin (ART), Jonathan Rosenberg (PS), Paul McCarthy (LIB), Rainer Newberry (GEOS), Douglas Schamel, Chair (CSEM/SOE)

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

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

PETITIONS

A major part of the committee's work involved reviewing petitions.  On average, we dealt with about 5-6 petitions per meeting.   

An offshoot of examining petitions was the motion that was passed by the Senate (see below).  We also discovered that students attempting to complete their degrees away from campus have limited offerings from which to choose.  We are pleased that students at UAF are able to use the lab-only portion of a science course, taken together with a transfer-credit lecture-only course, to meet Core science requirements.  This option seems to be unique to UAF.
 
MOTIONS TO THE FACULTY SENATE

We took one motion to the Faculty Senate this academic year.

1) A student may use any two Core science courses to fulfill Core requirements.  This measure should alleviate problems with poor advising and students changing career direction.  It is means that students who began their academic career at UAF will be treated the same as transfer students.  This motion passed.

ASSESSMENT OF THE CORE

Every year, several "O" courses and several "W" courses are chosen at random for Core assessment.  We opted to assess Spring semester courses this year.  For the first time, the committee made certain that some distance-delivered courses were included.

Communications, Library Science, the "Perspectives", and some Core science courses are up for assessment this spring.   We worked with CSEM to streamline assessment protocols for science courses; that protocol will be piloted this spring.

ADDITIONS TO THE "PERSPECTIVES"

The BA program will have a new "Values and Choice" course beginning in Fall 2004.

NEWS COLUMN IN THE "SUN-STAR"

It is not easy communicating changes to the Core Curriculum to students.  We had slight success last academic year with the Sun-Star.  Although the editor PROMISED to publish an article (written by the Chair) in time to assist students with Fall semester registration choices, that article never appeared.  In addition, a follow-up "Letter to the Editor" was not published, either.  

A CONTINUING DISCUSSION

We began the year with a discussion about broadening the Core, i.e. providing more options to students, especially in the "Perspectives" area.  After discussions at two meetings, we sensed the futility of this approach.  Luckily, an ad hoc committee CLA began wrestling this issue this spring.  After much conversation, they are still grappling with it.  We believe they intend to continue the conversation next year.  The Core Committee applauds them for bringing this issue on the table; we believe that discussion is important in academia. 

IDEAS FOR 2004-05

As Spring semester drew to a close, we had two interactions with CRA.  One involved an audio-conference to explain the intent of the Core and to answer questions about the Core.  It became clear that CRA faculty and courses need to be embraced more by the on-campus faculty.  The other issue involved the RFP, sent out by CDE, to build a distance-delivered Core science course.  We expressed concern that the RFP gave faculty little lead time, had not included CSEM faculty in the conversation, and would eventually need approval of the Core Committee to become a bona fide Core science course.  The Core Committee intends to begin a dialogue with CDE to help assure that distance-delivered and face-to-face offerings  are indeed comparable.

ATTACHMENT 123/20
UAF Faculty Senate #123
May 3, 2004
SUBMITTED BY DEVELOPMENTAL STUDIES

UAF Faculty Senate
 Developmental Studies Committee
2003-2004
Annual Report

Accomplishments: 

A joint motion from the Developmental Studies Committee and the Curricular Affairs Committee recommending a Mandatory Placement Policy at the developmental level was passed at the Faculty Senate meeting in May 2003.

A motion from this committee to amend the Senate bylaws to reflect the restructuring of CRA (the formation of the Department of Developmental Education and rural Student Support Services) was passed by the Faculty Senate on February 2, 2004.

Four course changes relating to the credit distribution of developmental courses were passed in April 2004.  

The committee has spent the majority of its time defining the relationship between the Developmental Studies Committee and the Department of Developmental Education.  

Ongoing Issues:

This committee is now functioning as a curricular review committee with oversight of the developmental curriculum.  This has changed the nature of the committee's work.  We anticipate working with the department on mandatory placement policy and curriculum development.  The committee will continue to serve as a means of strengthening links between the Department of Developmental Education and other university programs such as the Academic Advising Center, Student Support Services, Rural Student Services, Disability Services and academic departments.

ATTACHMENT 123/21
UAF Faculty Senate #123
May 3, 2004
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY APPEALS & OVERSIGHT

Minutes of Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee meeting of Tuesday April 13, 2004

Paul Layer chair

The committee voted to approve the five administrative review reports.  Minor corrections will be submitted to Paul Layer and he will pass those reports, along with questionnaires and other information on to Executive Dean Joseph and Provost Reichardt.

Dean Susan Henrichs and Professor Mark Box brought an issue to the committee regarding the appeals process for academic decisions other than grades.  This policy is being applied to Pass/Fail decisions on non course-work examinations (such as graduate comprehensive examinations) that are administered by a committee of faculty.  As written, one faculty member (the department chair) is asked by the Provost to review ALL decisions during the informal procedure.  During this review, he/she can overturn the decision of another group of faculty (the committee) without discussion, providing no avenue for faculty comment.  We do not feel that this was the intent of the informal review process, but rather it is intended to ensure that the decision was not reached in error or without justification.  The committee will look at amending the policy to close this loophole.

In discussion with Dean Henrichs, she felt that the whole appeals policy should be revisited with regard to graduate students and the specific decisions that are reached by committees and departments during the student’s progress.  The committee will recommend that the Senate appoint an ad-hoc committee to address this and other student appeals issues (such as student code of conduct violations).

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

Final Report for the Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee for the 2003-2004 academic year

Paul Layer Chair

The Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee has two primary duties and others "as assigned".

1.	"To act as a pool to be drawn upon to act as the United Academics representatives on the Appeals Board".  

Report:  No requests were made for committee members to serve on the Appeals Board.  However, decisions on promotion and tenure for this year will not be announced until May 1st and any appeals will be filed before May 10th.  Committee members were asked to serve on several student grade appeals "review committees".

2.	"Committee members shall oversee the process of evaluation of academic administrators"  

Report:   This year, five "Group B" administrators were up for review,  Roger Smith, Geophysical Institute;  Douglas Kane, Institute of Northern Engineering; Anthony Nakazawa, Cooperative Extension Service; Aldona Jonaitis, UA Museum;  and Clara Johnson, Interior-Aleutian Campus.  This was the first year of this review process.  Committee members developed questionnaires for faculty and staff that will serve as templates for future reviews.  We also interviewed board members and other constituents of the various organizations.  As of April 26, 2004, the final reports have not yet been submitted to Provost Reichardt or Executive Dean Joseph, but should be so before the end of the semester.  We want to thank Sheri Layral and her staff for handling the questionnaires and distributing the files to committee members.  The committee expects that next year's process will stay on schedule and meet the mid-March deadline.  Paul Layer will compile a file to pass on to the next chair with the questionnaires and other 'best practices' guidelines to facilitate next year's process. During the 2003-2004 academic year, no "Group A" administrators were reviewed due to expected changes in those positions.

3.	Although not directly part of our duties as outlined in the Bylaws, the committee was asked to look at developing a Student Code of Conduct policy for UAF and to review the entire appeals process.  

Report:  We were not able to complete a draft of such a policy.  We were however able to amend the Appeal of Academic Decisions policy to remove a potential conflict between faculty members during the informal part of the process.  For the larger picture, we recommend that an ad-hoc committee on Appeals and Code of Conduct issues be appointed to focus on the broader issues.

ATTACHMENT 123/22
UAF Faculty Senate #123
May 3, 2004
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY DEVELOPMENT, ASSESSMENT, & IMPROVEMENT

Minutes of Faculty Development Committee Meeting – April 13, 2004

Members present:  Joy Morrison, Marjorie Illingworth, Lee Haugen, Paul McCarthy, Tom Robinson, John Kawula, Mike Nakoneczny, Gerry Berman.

Members absent:  Brian Barnes, Mike Davis, Shunpu Zhang, Channon Price, Larry Roberts

1.	Marjorie Illingworth reported on sessions she attended at the recent AAHE conference.  She returned with some good information, and powerpoint presentations, on faculty assessment.  Marjorie plans to meet with Joy Morrison to thoroughly brief her on sessions attended.  Marjorie briefed the committee on information she gained regarding electronic assessment and engaging students, teachers & researchers with the community.

2.	Marjorie Illingworth reported on the CRA committee’s progress on student opinion of teaching issues.  The CRA committee is currently involved in gathering data from rural campuses.  Major SOI issues include:  turnaround time – response return to faculty between 4 months and 3 years; and # of receipts – many faculty have very low return rates (i.e. less than 5 responses).  A major concern is that the SOI data returned unfairly disadvantages rural faculty in the tenure and promotion process.  The committee flagged the exclusive use of these instruments in promotion and tenure, and their use by some administrators, as problematic.  A further concern surrounded what was being evaluated, particularly since some instructors receive multiple evaluations from some students, while others don’t, and since it is widely believed that scores from upper classmen tend to be higher than those from freshmen.

3.	The faculty development committee discussed the use of peer evaluations of teaching and peer evaluation of course materials as additional items that could, and should, be placed in tenure and promotion files and evaluated.  There have been concerns expressed that these two alternative teaching evaluation methods are used and administered unevenly across campus, and that they may not be evaluated seriously by some committees during the promotion and tenure process.  The committee suggested that this issue be raised by the University Senate.

4.	Joy Morrison reported on the recently held conference on women’s issues.  More than 100 people attended the conference.  The conference addressed issues surrounding female faculty dissatisfaction. 

5.  The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 a.m. 

ATTACHMENT 123/23
UAF Faculty Senate #123
May 3, 2004
SUBMITTED BY AD HOC COMMITTEE ON UNIT CRITERIA

UAF Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Unit Criteria 
Final Report for Academic Year 2003-2004 
Submitted April 23, 2004 by Daniel Odess, CLA

It has been a busy year in Unit Criteria Land.  The UC committee has reviewed or is in the process of reviewing criteria from seven peer units.  Their status as of April 23, 2004 is listed below:

Peer Unit 		Date Received		Status  		

CSEM  		October 2003  	Submitted to Senate, ratified.

SNRAS	September 2003	Submitted to Senate, ratified.

SOE	September 2003	Submitted to Senate, ratified.

Math Science	March 2004     	Forwarded to Senate May 2004

Anthropology	November 2003	Forwarded to Senate May 2004

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

FITC			April 2003		Comments to Unit April 16, 2004 and 
consideration deferred until next AY.

MAP	March 2004		Comments to Unit, consideration 
deferred to Next AY.

For both FITC and MAP, the question remains how these peer units relate to SFOS as a whole. This is an issue that the Dean, Vera Alexander, will work to resolve.

In addition the UC committee forwarded a motion changing the status of the committee from ad hoc to standing. That motion was ratified by the faculty senate in their March meeting. 

A motion regarding changes to the Blue Book is before the Senate for the May 2004 meeting. These changes would add a formal category of PROFESSIONAL SERVICE to the SERVICE criterion.

Ongoing issues and concerns:
More than half the draft criteria that have been submitted this year have not conformed to the format or language of the current version of the Blue Book.   This causes needless confusion and delay in the process of approving criteria.  If your unit is planning to develop criteria in the coming months or years, checking  with Sheri in the governance office to be sure you are working with the most current university-wide criteria will save time and angst.  Remember: criteria must conform to the REGULATIONS section (blue pages) of the Blue Book in format, and cannot be contrary to the POLICY section (white pages) of the Blue Book.

We see a need to have the BOR modify current Policy as follows:

Pg. 14 of Policies section:

[…."satisfactory," "good," "very good," and "excellent"]).
…"UNACCEPTABLE", "NEEDS  IMPROVEMENT", "SATISFACTORY", "SUPERIOR" AND "OUTSTANDING").

The categories which the Blue Book contemplates will be used for ranking or evaluating candidates  in annual review and review for P&T are "satisfactory," "good," "very good," and "excellent.  In the view of the committee, these categories do the University and individual  faculty  members a disservice because under the current system, the lowest rank is Satisfactory.  The current scheme does not provide a formal mechanism for indicating that a candidate's performance in any area needs improvement or is unacceptable.

We understand there may be issues in the CBA that will impinge upon this area of Policy.

ATTACHMENT 123/24
UAF Faculty Senate #123
May 3, 2004

Usibelli Award Nominees 2004

Teaching
Ed Husted  		Assoc. Professor, Paralegal Studies	CRA/TVC   R
John D. Fox		Assoc. Professor, Resource Mgt.    	SNRAS
J. Leroy Hulsey	Assoc. Professor, Civil & Environ. Engr.	CSEM
Brenda Konar  	Asst. Professor, Marine Biology		SFOS
Mary Mangusso 	Assoc. Professor, History			CLA
Yelena Matusevich	Assoc. Professor, French			CLA
Kara Nance		Professor, Computer Science  		CSEM
Greg Owens    	Assoc. Professor, Mathematics		CRA-RSS
Doug Schamel  	Assoc. Professor, Biology & Wildlife  	CSEM

Research
Stephen C. Jewett	Research Professor, Marine Science	SFOS
Hong Liang		Assoc. Professor, Mechanical Engr.   	CSEM
Dave McGuire  	Professor, Biology & Wildlife  		CSEM
Roger Ruess    	Professor, Biology				CSEM
Tom Shirley		Professor, Fisheries     			SFOS
*Charles Wilson & 	Professor Emeritus, Physics   		GI
*John Olson		Professor, Physics 				CSEM-GI

*nominated together

Service
Kade Mendelowitz 	Assoc. Professor, Theatre    	CLA    R
Carol Gold  		Professor, History 				CLA
Roger Hansen   	Research Professor, State Seismologist 	GI
Oscar Kawagley	Assoc. Professor, Education		SOEd
Rich Seifert		Professor of  Engineering Extension    	CRA-CES
			& Energy Specialist

ATTACHMENT 123/25
UAF Faculty Senate #123
May 3, 2004

Emeriti for AY2003-2004.

Dr. Doris Ann "D.A." Bartlett	CLA, Assistant Professor of English, Emerita

Dr. Susan Blalock      		CLA, Associate Professor of English, Emerita

Dr. R. Terry Bowyer  		CSEM, Professor of Wildlife Ecology, Emeritus

Dr. Donald E. Carling		SNRAS, Professor of Horticulture, Emeritus

Mr. Jim R. Douglas   		CRA-CES, Professor of Extension, Emeritus

Dr. Marshall L. Lind		Chancellor of UAF, Emeritus

Dr. Satyanarayan "Sathy" Naidu	SFOS, Professor of Marine Science, Emeritus

Dr. Colin Read			SOM, Professor of Economics

Dr. Glenn Shaw			CSEM, Professor of Physics

Mr. Frank Soos			CLA, Professor of Creative Writing, Emeritus

Mr. Dennis Stephens	CLA, Associate Professor of Library Science, Emeritus

Dr. Walter Tape			CSEM, Professor of Mathematics, Emeritus

Dr. Margaret "Peggy" Wood	CRA, Director, Bristol Bay Campus, Emerita

ATTACHMENT 123/26
UAF Faculty Senate #123
May 3, 2004
SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to endorse the 2004-2005 committee membership as attached.

	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately

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

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

2004 -2005 UAF FACULTY SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

STANDING COMMITTEES

Curricular Affairs
	Nancy Ayagarak, Kuskokwim, CRA (06)
	Carol Barnhardt, SOEd. (05)
	Steve Cysewski, CRA (05)
	Katrin Iken, SFOS (06)
	Pete Pinney, CRA (06)
	Rainer Newberry, CMS (06)--convener
	Yuri Shur, CEM (05)
	Jeannette Smith, CLA (05) 
	Joseph Thompson, CLA (05)
	  Ex-Officio:  ^Tim Stickel, University Registrar
			   Wanda Martin, Advising Center
			   Nancy Dix, Admissions
			   Undergraduate Student

Faculty Affairs
	Sine Anahita, CLA (06)
	Scott Bailey, CMS (06) 
	Karen Erickson, CLA (05)
	Jon Genetti, CMS (06)
	Michele He'bert, CRA/CES (06)
	Joan Leguard, CLA (05)
	Shirish Patil, CEM (06)--convener
	Craig Wisen, SOM (05)
	Mingchu Zhang, SNRAS (06) 

Unit Criteria
	Brenda Konar, SFOS (06)
	Debasmita Misra, CEM (06)
	Gary Holton, CLA (06)--convener
	CMS (05) 
	CRA/CES(05) 
	SNRAS/SOEd/SOM (05)

PERMANENT COMMITTEES

Committee on the Status of Women (elected) 
	Charlotte Basham, CLA (06)
	Uma Bhatt, CMS (06)
	Carol Gold, CLA (05)
	Cindy Hardy, CRA (05)
	Judith Kleinfeld, CLA (05)
	David Koester, CLA (05)
	Denise Thorsen, CEM (06)
	Jane Weber (06), Senate rep. --convener

Core Review (Elected)
	Jin Brown, Communication, CLA (06)--convener
	Derick Burleson, English, CLA (05)
	Alexei Rybkin, CMS, Math (06)
	Paul McCarthy, Library
	Doug Schamel, CMS, Sciences (06) 
	Jonathan Rosenberg, Social Sciences, CLA (05)
	Humanities, CLA (06)
	Other (06)
	Undergraduate Student

Developmental Studies Committee (Elected)  ??
	Jane Allen, Kuskokwim, CRA (05) 
	Patty Baldwin, RSS 
	John Bruder, Bristol Bay, CRA (05)
	Richard Carr, English, CLA (05)
	John Creed, Chukchi, CRA (06)--convener
	Pat Doak, Sciences, CMS (05)
	George Guthridge, Bristol Bay, CRA (05)
	Greg Owens, Math, CMS (06)
	Wanda Martin, Advising Center 
	Joe Mason, Northwest, CRA (06)
	Mary Matthews, SSSP
	Developmental Education (06)
	Interior-Aleutians, CRA (06)
	Tanana Valley Campus (06) 
	Rural campus Student Services

Faculty Appeals & Oversight Committee (Elected)
	Larry Duffy, CMS (06)
	Rajive Ganguli, CEM (06)
	Robert Gorman, CES (05)
	Terry Johnson, SFOS (06)
	Paul Layer, CMS (05)--convener
	Molly Lee, CLA (05)
	Victoria Joan Moessner, CLA (06)
	Allen Morotti, SOEd. (05)
	Brenda Norcross, SFOS (05)
	Michael Pippenger, SOM (05)
	Lufti Raad, CEM (05)
	Maria Reyes, SOEd (06)
	CRA/CES (06)
	SNRAS (05)
	SNRAS (06)
	SOM (06)

Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement 
	Rich Boone, CMS (06)
	Clifton Corkern, CRA/KCC (06)
	Mike Davis, CRA (05)
	Lee Haugen, SOEd. (06)--convener
	Marjorie Illingworth, TVC 
	John Kawula, CLA, Library (06)
	Joy Morrison, Faculty Development Office
	Mike Nakoneczny, CLA (05)
	Channon Price, CMS 
	Larry Roberts, CRA (05)
	Tom Robinson, SOM  

Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee 
	Ron Barry, CMS (06)
	Cathy Cahill, CMS (05)
	Mary Erhlander, CLA (05)
	Patty Gray, CLA (06)
	Catherine Koverola, CLA (05)
	Christa Mulder, CMS (05)--convener
	Doug Reynolds, SOM (05)
	Jennifer Reynolds, SFOS (05)
	Richard Wies, CEM (06)
	Joan Parker-Webster, SOEd (06) 
	  Ex-Officio:  	Susan Henrichs, Graduate Dean
			Paul McCarthy, Library Director
			Tim Stickel, University Registrar
			Graduate Student
			Graduate Student

OTHER:

UAF Governance Coordinating Committee
	Abel Bult-Ito, President
	Michael Hannigan, President-Elect

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

ATTACHMENT 123/27
UAF Faculty Senate #123
May 3, 2004
SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to adopt the following calendar for its 2004-2005 meetings.

	EFFECTIVE:   	Immediately

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

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

				UAF FACULTY SENATE
					2004-2005
				  Calendar of Meetings

Mtg. # 	Date   	Day    	Time    	Type

124     	9/20/04 	Monday	1:00 p.m.	audioconference

125     	11/1/04 	Monday	1:00 p.m.	face-to-face 

126     	12/13/04	Monday	1:00 p.m.	audioconference

127     	2/7/05	Monday	1:00 p.m.	audioconference

128   	3/7/05	Monday	1:00 p.m.	face-to-face

129    	4/4/05	Monday	1:00 p.m.	audioconference

130   	5/1/05	Monday	1:00 p.m.	face-to-face

Location:  Wood Center Carol Brown Ballroom 

ATTACHMENT 123/28
UAF Faculty Senate #123
May 3, 2004
SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to authorize the Administrative Committee to act on behalf of the Senate on all matters within its purview which may arise until the Senate resumes deliberations in the Fall of 2004.  Senators will be kept informed of the Administrative Committee's meetings and will be encouraged to attend and participate in these meetings.

	EFFECTIVE:   	May 3, 2004

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