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

A G E N D A
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #121
Monday, March 1, 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 #120
		C.	Adoption of Agenda

1:05	II	Status of Chancellor's Office Actions 		  5 Min.
		A.	Motions Approved:  
			1.	Motion to approve a Certificate in Yup'ik 
				Language Proficiency.
			2.	Motion to approve an A.A.S. in Yup'ik 
				Language Proficiency.
			3.	Motion to approve the Unit Criteria for 
				the School of Education.
			4.	Motion to amend the Faculty Senate 
				Section 3, (Article V, Committee, 
				Permanent) of the Bylaws pertaining to 
				the Developmental Studies Committee.  
			5.	Motion to support the Faculty Liaison position. 
		B.	Motions Pending:  none

1:10 	III	Public Comments/Questions 				10 Min.
		A.	Kim Davis, UAF Development Office

1:20	IV	Governance Reports
	A.	President's Comments - Pete Pinney  		  5 Min. 
	B.	President-elect's Report - Abel Bult-Ito    		  5 Min.
	C.	Staff Council - Rory O'Neill  				  5 Min.
	D.	ASUAF -Thom Walker / GSO -   	    		  5 Min.
	E.	Faculty Liaison - Eva Kopacz 				  5 Min. 

1:45	V	A.	Remarks by Chancellor M. Lind   		10 Min.
		B.	Remarks by Provost P. Reichardt		10 Min.

2:05		***BREAK***						10 Min

2:15	VI	Old Business						5 Min. 
	A.	Classified Research (Attachment 121/1)

2:20	VII	New Business						20 Min.
	A.	Motion to approve a B.A. in Child Development and 
		Family Studies, submitted by Curricular Affairs 
		(Attachment 121/2)
	B.	Motion to amend the Faculty Senate Section 3, 
		(Article V, Committee, Permanent) of the Bylaws, 
		submitted by Administrative Committee 
		(Attachment 121/3)
	C.	Outstanding Senator of the Year Award nominations
		(Attachment 121/4)
	D.	President-elect nominations 

2:40	VIII	Committee Reports 					15 Min.
	A.	Curricular Affairs - R. Newberry (Attachment 121/5)
	B.	Faculty Affairs - P. McRoy
	C.	Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee – C. Mulder
		(Attachment 121/6)
	D.	Core Review - D. Schamel (Attachment 121/7)
	E.	Curriculum Review - W. Schneider
	F.	Developmental Studies - J. Weber
	G.	Faculty Appeals & Oversight - P. Layer  
	H.	Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement – 
		P. McCarthy (Attachment 121/8)
	G.	Ad Hoc Committee on Unit Criteria - D. Odess

3:05	IX	Discussion Items   					10 Min.
	A.	UAF Academic Performance Criteria (Attachment 121/9)

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

3:20	XI	Adjournment

ATTACHMENT 121/1
UAF Faculty Senate #121
MARCH 1, 2004
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY AFFAIRS

Statement of Faculty Senate representatives of the Classified Policy Reconciliation Committee

The Faculty Senate
“The primary mechanism for the formulation and oversight of academic policy is the Faculty Senate.  Among concerns addressed by the Faculty Senate are: course and program development and change; policies related to academic procedures; academic freedom and faculty rights and responsibilities; and, quality of teaching, research and service.”
Source:  http://www.uaf.edu/uafgov/faculty/

Primary Concerns of Faculty
1.	The institutional officer charged with security oversight (the Facility Securities Officer or equivalent) must be funded fully so that she or he can conduct a complete and thorough review of proposals and assess all the impacts of the proposed activity.  Full funding of this office is the most important guarantee for the safety of the community, the protection of the academic environment, and compliance with federal requirements for security.
2.	The UAF Faculty Research Oversight Committee must not only be independent but also visibly seen to be so.  The review panel members will not require a security clearance as they will review an unclassified report of the proposal that is prepared by the Facility Securities Officer.  The review committee will give a finding of advice to the chancellor.  It is critical that the chancellor is not seen to be shaping the advice coming to her or him.
3.	The senate must be able to meet its responsibilities so that the academic integrity of the university is maintained in teaching, research, and service.  A faculty review panel elected from the senate will enable the senate to meet these responsibilities.

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

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

UAF Policy Concerning Classified and Proprietary Research

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

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

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

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

Basic Principles

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

Definitions

Classified Research:  Research that has a security classification established by a federal agency.
Various agencies of the federal government may designate some federally sponsored research project, either all or a portion of a particular project, as Top Secret, Secret, or Confidential.  Under the terms of this policy, research projects so designated are considered classified.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review Process for Classified and Proprietary Research Proposals:
The following procedures shall apply to all proposals submitted to the Office of Sponsored Programs.

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

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

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

Obligation

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

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

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

February 2, 2004

TO:	Chancellor Marshall Lind
	Provost Paul Reichardt

FROM:	Mike Hostina, Associate General Counsel

RE:	Revised Policy on Classified/Proprietary Research
	Creation of Advisory Committee on Classified Research

Administration Representatives to the Reconciliation Committee, Ted DeLaca, Roger Smith, and me, have met with and received a revised policy on Classified/Proprietary Research from Faculty Senate Reconciliation Committee Members Mark Box, Rich Collins, and Peter McRoy.  The following is my analysis of the revised policy.

The revised policy reflects the Senate Reconciliation Committee Members’ attempt to address the concerns raised in your September 8 response to the proposed policy (attached) and discussed in a reconciliation committee meeting.  However, the revised policy still creates substantive restrictions on research, which amount to an impermissible regulation.   The revised policy also continues to provide for a Faculty Research Oversight Committee consisting of nine members of the faculty senate.  This committee would be required to review “proposals identified as classified or proprietary” before a proposal could be submitted.  As a result, concerns remain regarding prompt review and broad dissemination of classified/proprietary information.  As a result, it is my opinion that the revised policy falls short of creating a review process which would be consistent with Regents’ Policy 10.07.02 and workable for UAF. 

I would note that the provisions establishing substantive restrictions on University research in both the original and revised policy are contained in sections entitled “Guidelines.”  The heading is thus inconsistent with the content, e.g., “The University will undertake only those contracts . . .;” “The University will under no circumstances . . .;” “the University will not enter into or renew  any contract . . .”   If accepted by the chancellor, these provisions may well be interpreted as regulations imposing those restrictions.    

Your September 8, 2003, memo established a Classified Research Review Committee.  The memo required that this committee advise you with respect to the potential impact of any classified research on a number of areas of concern.  Those areas of concern were based in large part on the proposed senate policy and on other similar policies. The memo also required that committee to keep records of the general nature of classified research as well as a summary of the committee’s evaluation and recommendation. 

The Faculty Senate is free to establish a standing committee on classified research, to review the non-classified records and summaries of the Classified Research Review Committee’s evaluation and recommendation, and, I assume, your determination as to whether to proceed.  The Senate’s committee or the Senate itself may then provide feedback, advice or comment to the administration as it sees fit.  It would seem that a process along these lines would allow the senate to provide review and input consistent with its principles, while allowing UAF administration to comply with Regents’ Policy.

Please let me and the administration representatives know if you think it appropriate to forward a response along these lines to the Senate Reconciliation Committee.

cc:	Ted DeLaca, Vice-Provost for Research
	Roger Smith, Director, Geophysical Institute

ATTACHMENT 121/2
UAF Faculty Senate #121
March 1, 2004
SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS

MOTION:
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve a BA in Child Development & Family Studies.

	EFFECTIVE:  	Fall 2004 and/or
		Upon Board of Regents' Approval.

	RATIONALE: 	See new course requests #64-71 and full 
		program proposal #72 from the Fall 2003 review cycle 
		on file in the Governance Office, 312 Signers’ Hall.

		ECE major requirement of 33 credits and three specialized 
		concentrations of 15 credits in Administration, Curriculum 
		and Teaching, and Family Support for a total of 126 
		credits; requires seven new courses.  

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

Brief Statement of the Proposed Program
Bachelor of Arts in Child Development & Family Studies

Mission:  The mission of the CDFS program is to provide necessary preparation for early childhood educators who wish to advance their professional knowledge and career opportunities with specialized study in curriculum, administration or family support.  

Delivery Method:  The program will be offered through flexible course delivery methods to early childhood educators, living in both rural and urban Alaska outside of Anchorage bowl.

Intent:  The intent of this degree is to qualify persons interested in upper level, higher paying  employment in the early childhood career field.  

Background:  In the Headstart Reauthorization Act, 50% of Headstart Teachers are required to have a Bachelors degree by 2008, with the intent that eventually all Headstart teachers will be so qualified. In addition, qualifications beyond an Associate degree are required or recommended for all preschool teachers and many other positions in the field including:  family advocates, home visitors, curriculum coordinators and administrators.  Employers for all of these positions regularly seek applicants with baccalaureate degrees. Recently employers have been hiring candidates from out of state in order to find qualified applicants. 

Furthermore, many of the current graduates of the ECE AAS degree want greater knowledge in this field, even if it is not required for their jobs.  Since there is no relevant degree available here, they go out of state, seek a less satisfying degree through the complex interdisciplinary process, change careers completely, or leave the university with unfulfilled career aspirations, unprepared for the more challenging positions in the early childhood profession.

According to multiple sources there are approximately 5000 early childhood jobs in Alaska.  The new BA in ECE at the UA campus is trying to prepare people for approximately 50% of those jobs, plus K-3 teachers in the Anchorage bowl.  The UAF program is intended to serve the rest of the state, focusing on Child Development and Family Studies, rather than Education.  Most early childhood professionals are mature women, with growing families and strong family values. Many work in small villages and cannot leave their families and communities to move to the city and obtain the UAA degree. The BA CDFS, with distance delivery, is designed for them.

University of Alaska New Program Approval

State Needs

Academic Programs

Students

Research

Faculty & Staff

Technology & Facilities

Board of Regents Summary Form

MAU: University of Alaska Fairbanks, in partnership with University of Alaska Southeast

Title and brief description:   BA Child Development & Family Studies

Target Admission date:   Courses beginning Fall 04, first catalog 2005-06

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

How does the program relate to the Education Mission of the University of Alaska?

“The University of Alaska Fairbanks, as the nation's northernmost Land, Sea, and Space Grant university and international research center, advances and disseminates knowledge through creative teaching, research, and public service with an emphasis on Alaska, the North and their diverse peoples.”

The proposed BA CDFS would help the university fulfill the mission through advancing and disseminating knowledge by creative teaching to diverse people.  Specifically, courses would be coordinated across multiple MAUs and offered through distance delivery to remote villages where Headstart teachers are required to have this degree to keep their jobs.   The content of the courses is also about creative teaching and the work the graduates are hired to do is an important public service.

The following UAF 2005 Strategic Plan Goals are met through the CDFS Program:

•	Provide high quality undergraduate education for traditional and non-traditional students

•	Form active collaborations with communities, organizations, businesses and government to meet identified state, national, and global needs

•	Serve as a premiere higher educational center for Alaska Natives

•	Serve as a model to demonstrate how gender, race, and cultural diversity strengthen a university and society.

Describe the State Needs being met by this program

Congress is increasing responsibilities for Headstart teachers, including a mandate for Headstart teachers to have a BA degree by 2008.  In order for local residents to continue in their positions as Headstart teachers to serve children and their families in outlying areas, a baccalaureate degree will be necessary. This has both financial and social implications in small isolated communities.

It is important for all children in Alaska who attend preschool to have high quality preschool experiences, as it reduces problems in remedial education and costly social services later in life. The quality of early care and education is most directly linked to the education of the teacher/care provider.  Research has shown Baccalaureate level of preparation to be the most effective. 

It is in the best fiscal interests of the state to have high quality programs for young children.  According to neuroscience and various research projects, improved services for children and families will decrease remediation costs within 5 years and improve economic contributions of citizenry within 2 decades.  Longitudinal studies show that for every $1 invested in a quality early care and education program, government saves $7.  (Perry Preschool Project)  

Over 5000 jobs in early care and education were identified by Prevention Associates, an Anchorage consulting firm.  There is currently a severe shortage of qualified care providers, family advocates and managers.  School districts are beginning to expand to serving 4 year olds, which may increase employment opportunities, and also increase demand for qualified preschool teachers.

What are the Student opportunities and outcomes? 

Prevention Associates, a private consulting firm based in Anchorage, estimated 5000 jobs statewide in ECE. This number was confirmed through the licensing office for the northern region.

Three recent Fairbanks administrative positions went to applicants from outside the community who had relevant bachelor’s degrees.  Likewise a recent Curriculum Coordinator position was filled with someone with a bachelor’s degree instead of one of our AAS graduates.

In the Headstart Reauthorization Act, Headstart teachers are required to have a BA by 2008.  Curriculum specialists and many administrative positions already require a bachelor’s degree.  Historically these positions lead the way; if they are required to have a bachelor’s degree others will be required to have baccalaureate level preparation for employment in the future.

Students who complete the CDFS degree will be highly competitive candidates for positions of greater responsibility and compensation in the early care and education profession in Alaska.

Enrollment projections

Using the employment estimates and assuming 50% of the population for the Anchorage bowl area, there would be 2500 positions in the rest of the state.  Assuming 50% of those people would need or want this degree results in an estimated 1250 potential students. 

These potential students would not all start immediately.  Based on the current ECE TVC and distance AAS enrollment of approximately 400 students, the relatively slow rate of completion, and the cost to students, the initial enrollment would be 20-30 students.  However, considering the response UAA has had to the BA in ECE, this may be a slightly conservative number.  

Enrollment projections:

Year	Fulltime	Part time	Total	
05-06	10	10	20	
06-07	10	20	30	
07-08	12	30	42	
08-09	15	40	55	

Credit hour projections:

Year	Fulltime students	Part time students	Total	
1	10 x 31 credits = 310	10 x 12 credits = 120	330	
2	10 x 35 credits = 350	20 x 12 credits = 210	560	
3	12 x 32 credits = 384	30 x 12 credits = 360 	744	
4	15 x 27 credits  = 405	40 x 12 credits = 480	885	

Describe the Research opportunities, if applicable.

The intent is not primarily for research.  No additional funds for research are anticipated at this time.

Identify any additional Faculty and Staff requirements as well as any existing expertise and resources that will be applied.

There are currently 5 fulltime ECE faculty and 15 part time ECE faculty. Additional faculty from other disciplines are utilized in some of the specialization areas.  Current staff from around the state, working with the AAS distance delivered and TVC AAS ECE programs, will assist with the BA degree 

Marylou Madden, retired Dean from UAS, is serving as the interim coordinator of the program.  Federal grant funding has been awarded to hire a coordinator for the next three years.

Additional faculty anticipated:

Initially, moving more qualified faculty into teaching the BA courses and more fully utilizing adjunct faculty for the AAS classes would fulfill the need. One full time position may eventually be hired, if demand warrants, and grant funds continue.  

Courses in the specialty areas from other disciplines would be taught from current faculty in those disciplines.  If necessary the ECE distance budget can pay for an overload or buy out time for these faculty members to teach an occasional extra course.

Identify the impacts on existing Technology & Facilities as well as projected needs.

The urban portion of the program could be accomplished in current facilities; insignificant increase in enrollments for core and BA courses, resulting in little if any impact on technology and facilities.

The increase in the rural program might have impact on the audio conferencing network; no anticipated impact on rural facilities.  Possibly more federal grant funds would be available to help with this, as is the case with the video conferencing equipment being supplied by the ECE distance education grant.

Resource Commitment to the
Proposed Degree Program

Resources	Existing	New
	Total
	
	College/School	College/School 	Others (Specify)		
Regular Faculty (FTE’s & dollars)
	6 current  $would be in regular workload	Eventually add 1 FT faculty $85,000		85,000	
Adjunct Faculty (FTE’s & dollars)
	12 with others available	$10,000 estimated if FT faculty		10,000	
Teaching Assistants
(Headcount)	None	None anticipated			
Instructional Facilities
(in dollars and/or sq. footage)	Varies by site 
1 @ TVC
 832 sq. ft.	No additional anticipated			
Office Space
(Sq. footage)
	Varies by site
1 @ TVC
196 sq. ft.	Possible if FT faculty added $10,000		10,000	
Lab Space
(Sq. Footage)
	Bunnell House @ UAF	No additional anticipated			
Computer & Networking
(in dollars)	Distance program currently covers this with tuition & grant	$10,000, primarily for audio		10,000	
Research/ instructional/office Equipment
(in dollars)	Varies by site	$8,000 - office equipment if FT faculty hired		8,000	
Support Staff
(FTE’s & dollars)
	Varies by site	Use existing around the state for now			
Supplies
(in dollars)
	Varies by campus	$1,000		1,000	
Travel
(in dollars)
	Varies by campus	$4,000		4,000	
Total				$128,000	

Signature:  Bernice Joseph, Dean of College of Rural Alaska  	Date:  10/20/03

ATTACHMENT 121/3
UAF Faculty Senate #121
March 1, 2004
SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE

MOTION: 
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend Section 3, (Article V, Committees, Permanent) of the Bylaws to establish a permanent "Committee on the Status of Women."

CAPS - Addition
[[   ]] -  Deletion

PERMANENT

7.	THE COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN.  MEMBERSHIP WILL CONSIST OF EIGHT PEOPLE, ONE OF WHOM WILL BE A SENATOR, THE OTHERS TO BE ELECTED AT LARGE FROM AMONG UAF FACULTY.

THE PURPOSE OF THIS COMMITTEE IS TO MONITOR THE STATUS OF WOMEN FACULTY AT UAF AND TO WORK PROACTIVELY FOR GENDER EQUITY.

SUCH ACTIONS WILL INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO:  
	MAINTAINING LISTS OF WOMEN FACULTY WITH HIRE, TENURE AND PROMOTION DATES.
	ORGANIZING AND SUPERVISING SURVEYS ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN AND ASSESSING THE CULTURAL CLIMATE OF THE UNIVERSITY AS IT PERTAINS TO WOMEN.
 	RECOMMENDING POLICY TO ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF WOMEN FACULTY.
	SUPPORTING MENTORING OF WOMEN, BOTH NEW AND MID-CAREER FACULTY, INCLUDING RUNNING WORKSHOPS ON MENTORING, PROMOTION & TENURE, NEGOTIATING TECHNIQUES AND OTHER FORMS OF FACULTY DEVELOPMENT IDENTIFIED AS NECESSARY.
	ADDRESSING FAMILY-WORK ISSUES, SUCH AS CHILD CARE, PARENTAL LEAVE, SPOUSAL/PARTNER HIRE.
	COORDINATING WITH OTHER CAMPUS AND UNIVERSITY GROUPS WHICH DEAL WITH WOMEN'S AND GENDER ISSUES.
	AND ANY OTHER ISSUES WHICH WOULD HELP WOMEN TO ACHIEVE EQUITY AT UAF.

	EFFECTIVE:   	Immediately

RATIONALE:  	Women faculty at UAF have not achieved a level of equity congruent with their numbers either at the University or in the academic profession.  This is apparent through several miscellaneous data, any one of which might be explained away, but which together make up a picture of inequity.  For example:

•	The Faculty Opinion Survey prepared for Statewide Human Resources, July 2003, found that only 55% of faculty (male and female) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “Women faculty are treated fairly here.”  This compares with a nationwide response rate of 85% agreement.  When men’s and women’s responses are separated, women’s disagreement rate goes up  (http://www.alaska.edu/hr/hractivities/surveys/FacultyReport2003.pdf), p. 37.

•	Since the formation of the UAF Faculty Senate in 1988, there has been only one woman president.  

•	In the 12 years of Usibelli Awards, only five awards have gone to women—3 women received awards for service and one each for teaching and research.  Out of a total of 36 awards, women have received only 14% (http://www.uaf.edu/univrel/awards/faculty/index.html).

•	According to the United Academics website (www.unitedacademics.net), there were 11 recipients of retention raises in the past year and a half.  None went to women.

•	Of the 26 members of the UAF Chancellor Search Committee, only 9 (36%) are women.  Of the 8 UAF faculty members, only 2 (25%) are women.  CLA, which has the largest number of women faculty, is represented on the committee by two men (www.uaf.edu/chancellor/search/committee.html).

•	There are 158 full professors at UAF;  of these, 20  (13%) are women.  Of these, only 10 are in the liberal arts, the disciplines which have the highest concentration of women faculty.
Put another way, out of 200 women faculty at UAF, only 20 (10%) are full professors.  Out of 407 men faculty, 138 (34%) are full professors.  
Or, out of a total of 607 faculty members, 33% are women, mostly concentrated at the lower levels of the academic hierarchy (www.uaf.edu/pair/2003/D4spr03.html). 

•	58% of the students at UAF are women (www.uaf.edu/pair/2003/C3bsp03.html).   

It is not unreasonable to expect that women would make up a greater percentage of the total faculty at UAF and be more equitably represented in various faculty venues.

These inequities may be due to any number of individual reasons, to conscious or unconscious discrimination, or the unwillingness or inexperience of women to take advantage of opportunities.  In any case, we need to find out why and then take action to address the problem.  A Committee on the Status of Women would be the focal point for remediative action.

ATTACHMENT 121/4
UAF Faculty Senate #121
March 1, 2004

OUTSTANDING SENATOR OF THE YEAR AWARD (OSYA)

PURPOSE: 
The Outstanding Senator(s) of the year award is an award to be given by the UAF Faculty Senate for truly outstanding contribution of service for academic quality at the University.  The contribution to be recognized would be far beyond that normally made by an individual in the normal performance of his or her job.  

CRITERIA:  
The recipient should be a serving member of the UAF Faculty Senate or a serving member of a permanent or standing committee of the Faculty Senate who has made a major contribution to the faculty's and student's welfare, to the faculty's ability to carry out its duties more effectively, to the general betterment of the University outside the teaching and research function, or has shown wise and courageous leadership (and responsibility) in behalf of the faculty and University.  This should be an award for service, not teaching or research, above and beyond that normally expected from an individual.  

NON-ELIGIBILITY:  
The President and President-Elect of the Faculty Senate are not eligible to receive this award in their positions during their years of service.  

PROCEDURES:  
Any eligible Faculty Senate member may nominate a candidate for the OSYA.  The letter of nomination should include a brief list of the Senator's accomplishments and a cover letter that makes the case for the nominee.  The nomination should be submitted to the Faculty Senate President by March 1.  

The Screening Committee will consist of five members.  One member will be appointed from the Provost Council by the Provost.  The Faculty Senate will select four (4) members one of whom will be the President-Elect, and three others, none of whom is a nominee, in the March meeting of the Senate.  This committee will meet prior to the April meeting of the Senate to screen all applicants and select one or two candidates that are recommended to the Senate President.  

In the April Faculty Senate meeting, the committee shall move the appropriate resolution(s).  After appropriate discussion, the full Senate shall vote by secret ballot on the motions.  A simple majority vote of those attending will be necessary for the Senate to confirm an OSYA.  The votes will be counted by the President and Secretary of the Senate, and the award is announced by the President of the Senate.  

The award is to be presented by the President of the Senate and the form of the award shall be a framed, hand-lettered certificate that contains the resolution passed by the Senate and the signatures of the Faculty Senate President and President-Elect.

ATTACHMENT 121/5
UAF Faculty Senate #121
March 1, 2004
SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS

Minutes for Committee on Curricular Affairs 
Mon 9 February,  2-3:30 p.m., Woods Center Memorial Conference Room

Present:  Jeannette  Smith, Yuri Shur, Rainer Newberry, Susan Herman, Bill Schneider, Steve Cysewski, Phyllis Morrow, Gayle Gregory, Wanda Martin, Tim Stickel, Eduard Zilberkant, Mario Kupries, and Mike Hannigan (by ‘phone).  Guests: Patty Merrit, Ron Illingsworth, Joy Morrison

1.  Final review and approval of slightly revised Child Development & family studies major with minor modifications.  Financial and administrative details were clarified.   Motion to present the proposed Child Development & Family Studies B.A. to the Senate moved, seconded, and unanimously passed.  Patty Merrit agreed to make a few minor modifications to the document before sending on. 

2.  Syllabus template.  Joy Morrison of faculty Development office discussed this issue with us.  She agreed to the need for a document spelling out what ought to be in a syllabus and agreed to cooperate with the committee in creating such a document.  Susan Herman agreed that Carol Barnhardt and she would coordinate efforts with Joy.  All concerned thought it reasonable for a final document to be presented within a month. 

3.    Revised time for meetings.  Committee Chair screwed up on times and has a class conflict with Monday afternoon starting next week.  The Committee graciously forgave the chair for being a dork and agreed to a new time:  alternate Monday mornings 9:30-10:30 am.  Next meeting to be Monday, Febr 23, place to be decided, but presumably Woods Center (closer to expresso bar).

4.  Revisit of cross-listing issues     Phyllis Morrow spoke to her concerns about both the wording of the paragraphs describing cross-listed and stacked courses and need for instructor approval from appropriate departments.  She suggested that each course have minimum requirements for instructor written up, which would allow simplification of approval.  Committee thought it a marvelous idea and suggested she run it by the CLA faculty before acting officially on it.  Phyllis agreed to bring the issue up at the next CLA faculty meeting and present a revised document to the next committee meeting.

5.  Meeting adjourned with considerable enthusiasm at 3:30 pm.

ATTACHMENT 121/6
UAF Faculty Senate #121
March 1, 2004
SUBMITTED BY GRADUATE ACADEMIC & ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee (GAAC)
Friday, February 6, 2004 3:30 p.m. - 5.00 p.m.
Chair: Rolf Gradinger

GAAC held a public meeting in 330 Signers Hall on February 6, 2004.

a) Trial course requests
The committee discussed three trial course requests.  One request was approved, two others were send back to the individual faculty members to provide more detailed information in the syllabus and justification for stacking, respectively.

b) Number of credits per semester for graduate students
Dr. Henrichs provided the committee with an overview on the current regulations concerning the maximum number of credits one student can take per semester.  After discussing this issue, GAAC asked Dr. Henrichs to draft a policy that would set upper limits to the number of credits per semester per student.  At present, a student needs the approval by the major advisor and the department chair, if the student takes 19 credits or more. A new policy was discussed that would require additional approval by the dean of the school, if the number of credits equals or exceeds 20.

c) Syllabus requirements
The GAAC recommends to develop a list of basic information that is required in course syllabi. The recommendations of the Curricular Affairs Committee were distributed to the GAAC members and will be reviewed at the next meeting.

d) Date of Admission
Mike Earnest (Associate director of Admission) informed the GAAC members about the ideas to move the date of admission forward to May 1 or June 1 (at present: August 1).  Reason for the change is the very short processing time between the end of the application period and the start of the semester.  GAAC recommended to move it forward to June 1.  Dr. Henrichs agreed that her office will contact the individuals units at UAF to see whether they agree with such a change.  Such a change could be implemented in 2005.

Next meeting was scheduled for February 27, 2004.

ATTACHMENT 121/7
UAF Faculty Senate #121
March 1, 2004
SUBMITTED BY CORE REVIEW COMMITTEE

Report of the Core Review Committee

February 2004

Reported by Douglas Schamel, Chair

The Core Review Committee met on Feb 3 and Feb 24.

Members present:  Jin Brown, Derek Burleson, Jill Faudree, Paul McCarthy, Rainer Newberry, Jonathan Rosenberg, Douglas Schamel
Ex-officio members: Sue McHenry, Wanda Martin

1. Routing of petitions has improved steadily.  Most Core petitions now go from the Graduation Office directly to the petitioned department for review.  This has increased our efficiency and decreased our turn-around time.

2. We struggled with a petition to allow a “values and choice” waiver for a UAF course that applied for “values and choice” status, but was found unacceptable.  We have sought further clarification from the department head about internal consistency in approving petitions.

3. We also struggled with a request from the Foreign Languages department to postpone the “O” assessment for a course.  Although there are extenuating circumstances this spring, we feel quite strongly that there should be some consistency to course offerings, i.e. students should receive the “O” portion of a course regardless of who is teaching the course.   We are encouraging the Foreign Language faculty to schedule a workshop on “O” courses with the Communications department.

4. The committee received an update from Dr. Rosenberg regarding ongoing discussions within CLA about “Perspectives on the Human Condition.”

5. Schamel has been invited to discuss Core issues at a teleconference with CRA faculty on April 16.

ATTACHMENT 121/8
UAF Faculty Senate #121
March 1, 2004
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY DEVELOPMENT, ASSESSMENT, & IMPROVEMENT  COMMITTEE

Faculty Development, Assessment and Improvement Committee

Minutes from meeting of Feb. 12/04, 1:00 p.m., 222 Bunnell

1.	The committee agreed on a new meeting time – Tuesday mornings, 8:00 a.m.  Our next meeting will be held on Feb. 24/04 at 8:00 a.m. in 222 Bunnell.

2.	Joy requested that all committee members who are available plan to attend the new faculty luncheon at 1:00 p.m. on Tuesday, Feb. 17/04.  The luncheon is an opportunity for new faculty to meet the Faculty Development Committee, Senate President Pete Pinney, and understand how the university Senate functions.

3.	Joy reminded the committee of the upcoming Women’s Conference at UAF.

4.	Joy asked for volunteers from the committee to attend the POD Conference in Montreal, Canada in the fall of 2004.

5.	Joy indicated that Marjorie Illingworth would be attending the AAHE Conference this spring.

6.	The committee agreed to begin a new discussion on student opinion of teaching and surrounding issues (again!) at our next meeting.  Marjorie Illingworth offered to provide a report from the CRA committee that has been organized to deal with issues specific to their mission.  Tom Robinson suggested inviting Hild Peters to be here for our next meeting to add input into this discussion.

7.  The meeting was adjourned at 1:20 p.m.

ATTACHMENT 121/9
UAF Faculty Senate #121
March 1, 2004

ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
Schools and Colleges
2/11/04 (Draft)

Productivity

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

(a)# Regular Faculty FTEF + # Adjunct and Overload FTEF
(b)0.5 x #Certificates + #Associates + # Baccalaureates + # Licensure (Ed) + 2 x  # Masters + 5 x #Ph.D.
(c)sum of professional publications, presentations, performances
(d)does not include x97, x98, x99; stacked and cross-listed courses count as a single section

Quality

1.	% Programs with active outcomes assessment
2.	IAS mean score for “Average of items 1-4”
3.	Promotion/Tenure candidate ratings(d) from past three years

(d)Average of campuswide promotion/tenure committee evaluation of candidates (E/VG/G/S/U scoring in teaching, research, service) assigned on a 1-5 scale.

4.	% Last Year’s Grads employed or in Graduate School

Centrality(e)

1.	Alaska’s Economic and Workforce Development
2.	Environment and Human Health
3.	Circumpolar North
4.	Alaska Native Issues and Rural Alaska Teachers
5.	Arts/Humanities/Sciences - Core of Undergraduate Education

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

Schools/Colleges

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

Academic Performance Criteria
Institutes
2/11/04 (Draft)

Productivity

1.	Total $/State Appro. $
2.	ICR $/FTEF(a)
3.	# Refereed Publications/FTEF
4.	# Professional Presentations/FTEF
5.	# Graduate Students/Faculty
6.	# Undergrad research students/faculty

(a)# Regular Faculty FTEF + # Adjunct and Overload Faculty FTEF

Quality

1.	# Faculty with external awards(b)/Faculty
2.	# Faculty with external professional service positions(c)/Faculty
3.	# Publications with >25 citations/Faculty
4.	Promotion/Tenure Candidate Ratings(d) from past three years

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

Centrality(e)

1.	Alaska’s Economic and Workforce development
2.	Environment and Human Health
3.	Circumpolar North
4.	Alaska Native Issues and Rural Alaska Teachers
5.	Arts/Humanities/Sciences – Core of Undergraduate Education

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

Institutes

AFES		IAB		INE
ARSC		IARC		Museum
GI			IMS