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

For Audioconferencing:  Access#:  1-866-339-5580    
Meeting#:  *1791514*

A G E N D A
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #127
Monday, February 7, 2005
1:00 p.m. - 3:30 p.m.
Wood Center Carol Brown Ballroom

1:00	I	Call to Order – Abel Bult-Ito       			  5 Min.
		A.	Roll Call
		B.	Approval of Minutes to Meeting #126
		C.	Adoption of Agenda

1:05	II	Status of Chancellor's Office Actions 		  5 Min.
	A.	Motions Approved:
1.	Motion to establish Policy on Identification and Use of Acceptable Academic Degrees.  
2.	Motion to amend the BBA degree requirements. 
3.	Motion to approve a Certificate in Medical Assisting.
4.	Motion to approve a Certificate in Instrumentation Technology.
5.	Motion to approve a Certificate in Safety, Health, and Environmental Awareness Technology.
6.	Motion to amend the UAF Faculty Senate Constitution (Article III and IV).
7.	Motion to recommend the amendment of Regents' Policy 04.04.040.
8.	Motion to approve the Unit Criteria for the Marine Advisory Program (MAP). 
9.	Motion to approve the deletion of the Engineer of Mines (E.M.) degree. 
10.	Motion to amend the policy on Special or Reserved Numbers. 
	B.	Motions Pending:  
1.	Motion to amend the UAF Regulations for the Appointment and Evaluation of Faculty "Blue Book".

1:10 	III	Public Comments/Questions 				  5 Min.

1:15	IV	A.	President's Comments - Abel Bult-Ito  	10 Min. 
			(Attachment #1)
 		B.	President-Elect's Comments - Paul Layer 	  5 Min. 

1:30	V	A.	Remarks by Chancellor S. Jones		  5 Min. 
B.	Remarks by Provost P. Reichardt		  5 Min.
			UAF Academic Degree Planning & Projections for 2005-2010 
(Attachment #2)

1:40	VI	Guest Speakers
		A.	David Veasey, Asst. Vice President		10 Min.
			Academic Affairs (Attachment #3)
		B.	Curt Madison, Director, CDE	 		10 Min.
			Distance Education (Attachment #4)
			(http://distance.uaf.edu/steeringboard/documents.html)
		C.	J.J. Boggs, Leadership Development Coordinator	5 Min. 
			(http://www.uaf.edu/leadership)

2:05	VII	Governance Reports					  5 Min.
	A.	Staff Council – Josh Steadman 		
	B.	ASUAF -Thom Walker / GSO 

2:10		** Break**  							10 Min. 

2:20	VIII	New Business						30 Min.
A.	Motion on Freshman Progress Reports, submitted by Curricular Affairs (Attachment 127/5)
B.	Motion to approve a Certificate and A.A.S. in Construction Trades Technology, submitted by Curricular Affairs (Attachment 127/6)
C.	Motion to amend the UAF Faculty Senate By-Laws, Section 1 (ART III: Membership) concerning recall, submitted by Faculty Affairs (Attachment 127/7)
D.	Motion to recommend the amendment of Regents' Policy 10.06.01 regarding Assessment, submitted by Faculty Affairs (Attachment 127/8)
E.	Motion to approve the Unit Criteria for Natural Sciences (CNSM), submitted by Unit Criteria (Attachment 127/9)
F.	Motion to override the veto of the amend to the Faculty Senate Bylaws, Section 3, (Article V, Committee, Standing) to establish a "Research Oversight Committee", submitted by   
Administrative Committee (Attachment 127/10)

2:50	IX	Committee Reports 					20 Min.
	A.	Curricular Affairs - Rainer Newberry (Attachment 127/11)
	B.	Faculty Affairs - Shirish Patil (Attachment 127/12)
	C.	Committee on the Status of Women - Jane Weber/Carol Gold 
(Attachment 127/13)
	D.	Core Review - Doug Schamel (Attachment #127/14)
	E.	Curriculum Review - 
	F.	Developmental Studies - Joe Mason/Cindy Hardy
	G.	Faculty Appeals & Oversight - 
	H.	Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement – 
		Lee Haugen 
	I.	Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee – Christa Mulder/Mary 
Erhlander  (Attachment 127/15)
	J.	Unit Criteria - Gary Holton 

3:10	X	Members' Comments/Questions			10 Min.

3:20	XI	Adjournment

ATTACHMENT 127/1
UAF Faculty Senate #127
FEBRUARY 7, 2005

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend Article III and IV of the UAF Faculty Senate Constitution as follows:  

[[   ]] - Deletions
CAPS - Additions

ARTICLE III - Membership 

Sec. 1	The Senate shall be constituted according to the provisions specified in the bylaws.  

Sec. 2	Voting members of the Senate must either hold academic rank with full-time continuing appointment at the University of Alaska Fairbanks or hold special academic rank with title preceded by "research" or "term".

Sec. 3	Senate members shall be elected from and by the faculty of their respective units, as set forth in the bylaws, to two-year terms which shall be staggered to ensure continuity.  

Sec. 4	The terms of the newly elected and appointed members shall commence at the beginning of "New Business" of the last regularly scheduled Senate meeting of the academic year.  

Sec. 5	Any ELECTED OFFICER OR voting member of the Senate may be recalled according to the provisions of the by-laws.

Sec. 6	Non-voting members of the Senate shall have voting privileges on any Senate committee on which they serve. 

ARTICLE IV - Officers

Sect. 1 The two officers of the Senate shall be the President and the President-Elect.

Sect. 2 The President and President-Elect shall be elected by the elected representatives 
	of the Senate for one-year terms.  Eligible nominees for the offices of President 
	and President-Elect shall be elected representatives and/or chairs of standing 
	and permanent committees of the Senate.  

Sect. 3 The President-Elect, after serving for one year in this position, subject to 
	Sections 4, [[ and]] 5, AND 6,  will automatically become President for one year.

Sect. 4 The term of the President may be extended for one additional year by a 
	two-thirds majority vote of the entire voting membership of the Senate. 
	The vote will be by secret ballot and, if passed, the term of the President 
	and the current President-Elect will be extended for no more than one 
	additional year.

Sect. 5 If for any reason the President should relinquish or be recalled from office, 
	the President-Elect will automatically and immediately assume the Presidency.  
	The Senate shall elect a Vice President to fill out the remainder of the year 
	at which time a new election for President-Elect will be held [[as outlined in 
	ARTICLE III, Section 6]].  The previously elevated President-Elect will complete 
	the next academic year as President.

SECT. 6 IF FOR ANY REASON THE PRESIDENT-ELECT SHOULD RELINQUISH OR BE RECALLED FROM OFFICE, THE SENATE SHALL ELECT A PRESIDENT-ELECT TO FILL OUT THE REMAINDER OF THE YEAR AT WHICH TIME A NEW ELECTION FOR PRESIDENT-ELECT WILL BE HELD.  

SECT. 7 The terms of the newly elected President and President-Elect shall commence 
	at the beginning of "New Business" of the last regularly scheduled Senate 
	meeting of the academic year.

	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediate, Upon Chancellor Approval

RATIONALE:  	To preserve Faculty Senate's integrity and to assure that the members and/or officers of the Senate are held at highest professional, academic, and ethical standards.

ATTACHMENT 127/2
UAF Faculty Senate #127
FEBRUARY 7, 2005

UAF ACADEMIC DEGREE PLANNING AND PROJECTIONS FOR 2005-2010

Prepared By:	Paul Reichardt, Provost

Date:		December 7, 2004

New Program Proposal Previously Forwarded from UAF to SAC
B.S. in Computer Engineering—on hold at SAC pending findings from the UAA/UAF Engineering Committee; implementation would require addition of 0.5-1.0 FTEF

New Program Proposals under Consideration by the UAF Faculty Senate
Certificate in Medical Assisting
Certificate in Construction Trades Technology
AAS in Construction Trades Technology
Certificate in Instrumentation Technology
Certificate in Safety, Health, and Environmental Awareness Technology
BA in Emergency Services

Program Deletion Proposal under Consideration by the UAF Faculty Senate
E.M. Degree—Engineer of Mines

New Program Proposals at Advanced Stages of Planning
Ph.D. in Psychology—This collaborative program with UAA is expensive—incremental costs for the two MAU’s are estimated at ca. $1M.  UAF’s portion of the incremental expense is expected to be ca. $400K.  Once the program is fully subscribed the incremental income for UAF is estimated at ca. $365K (tuition, $105K; faculty buy-outs from grants, $60K; ICR, $300K).  Since at least a portion of the incremental ICR would have to go to other units (e.g., the portions assigned to the library and to Statewide Administration), it is unlikely that more than about $250K from incremental income could be assigned to direct support of the program.  A more realistic approach might be to assume that $200K would have to come from new State appropriation (e.g., the FY06 “Competitive Research” increment) or from reallocation within UAF.

Ph.D. in Engineering—add Geological, Mining, and Petroleum Engineering to degree options—no significant additional costs
M.A. in Natural Resources Management (non-thesis alternative to existing M.S. in Natural Resources Management; no additional costs)

B.S./B.A. in Fisheries—major program revision to incorporate the opportunities afforded by the Lena Point facility, to include multiple tracks (e.g., basic fisheries science, fisheries management), and to include the other MAU’s; additional costs are unknown but the Rasmuson Foundation would probably take a serious look at providing funds to implement a good program

B.S./B.A. in Geography—program revision to allow collaborative delivery of the program in Anchorage and possibly in Juneau; one FTEF in Fairbanks and operational funds for program coordination (e.g., secretarial support, travel, distance education expenses) are needed to institute this program; possibly we should consider UAF funding the faculty position through reallocation and seek new funds for program coordination.

Certificate in Tribal Finance
Certificate in Behavioral Health
Certificate and/or AAS in Dental Therapist
Certificate and/or AAS in Dental Hygienist
Certificate and/or AAS in Process Technology:  Forestry
Certificate and/or AAS in Process Technology:  Mining
Certificate and/or AAS in Cosmetology
Minor in Global Studies (does not require BOR approval); no additional expenses anticipated

New Program Proposals in Exploratory Stage
Ph. D. in Computational Physics or Computational Science
Ph.D. in Soils
Ph.D. in Forestry
Ph.D. in English
Ph. D. in Neuroscience (presently an option in the Ph.D. in Biochemistry/Molecular Biology; development as a separate degree depends upon program development and enrollments)
Ph.D. in Education
Minor in Gerontology (does not require BOR approval)
Minor in Hazard Management (does not require BOR approval)

ATTACHMENT 127/3
UAF Faculty Senate #127
FEBRUARY 7, 2005

Draft 
UA Faculty Workload System
Project Charter (Dec. 17, 2004)
Purpose

Implement a more efficient and electronic interactive database system for faculty workload and activity reports across the University of Alaska System.  

Objectives

•	Reduce faculty time required to fill out workload and activity reports.

•	Convenient, automated process for creation of faculty workload that transforms into an editable activity report as a first step towards an automated system for electronically updating CV’s, promotion and tenure packets and grant proposal information for faculty.

•	Paper-less creation, review, revision and communication of faculty workloads and activity reports that integrates with existing technology to the greatest extent possible.

•	Controlled, secure access over the public internet to faculty workload and activity reports.

•	Information and reporting capabilities to meet needs of faculty (i.e. electronic submission, reduced time for compiling reports and portfolios), unions and UA administration.

Guiding Principles / Key Issues

•	Security of information
•	Flexibility for new and different information – non standard workload items
•	Eliminate duplication of data entry and automatically populate where feasible
•	Create policy regarding aggregation and use of information
•	Maintain revisions
•	Standardize definitions
•	Robust design (for heavy use) and user friendly functionality

Constraints

•	Funding for on-going operation of project beyond existing one-time funding through 9/30/05 has not been identified.

•	Implementation requires full participation of faculty, chairs and deans.

ATTACHMENT 127/4
UAF Faculty Senate #127
FEBRUARY 7, 2005

University of Alaska
Distance Education Steering Board

The First 45 Days

December 24, 2004
Curt Madison, Chair

Formation of the Distance Education Committees

In August the members of the President’s Ad-hoc Committee for Distance Education voted to disband. The committee had been in existence for nine months (see Appendix A:  PACDE Formation). The committee felt that it had completed all assigned projects by mid-August. The committee also felt that as an ad-hoc committee it was standing in the way of a consistent, institutionalized, effort to address distance education issues as an on-going concern.

August 30, 2004, Dr. Jason Ohler presented the report of PACDE activities to President Hamilton informing him of the imminent demise of the committee. President Hamilton decided to follow up on the PACDE efforts with a permanent two-committee structure (see Appendix B: PACDE final committee report).

On October 7, 2004, President Hamilton delivered a memo creating a new organizational structure to help University of Alaska face distance education issues. (see Appendix C: Steering Board and Educational Technology Team creation).

The memo creating the two committees gave until October 21 to complete the selection of members appointed by the respective MAU Chancellors. All Steering Board committee members were selected by October 21 with the exception of the Juneau representative. Subsequently Katy Spangler was nominated and appointed.

Organizational Meetings
The Steering Board met in Fairbanks at the Butrovich Shermann Carter Conference room on November 2, 2004. The meeting had computer-mediated support facilitated by Dr. Robert Briggs. The meeting produced a lengthy report elaborating the distance education concerns of the 20 participants. The concerns were focused into critical issues, then parsed into six strategic goals. The participants enrolled themselves into 90-day work groups to address the first three strategic goals.  The workgroups will report back to the Steering Board no later than March 1, 2005. The entire meeting report can be seen at http://www.distance.uaf.edu/steeringboard/docs/Report.htm.

The November 2 meeting surfaced 26 critical issues to address before distance education can be adequately deployed throughout the UA system.  (see Appendix E: Critical Issues). The Steering Board representatives are responsible for communicating the concerns of their campus back to the main group and to return communication from the group to their respective campuses. No one expects that the work will go smoothly or quickly. These concerns reach deeply into the identity and sustainability of the UA system campuses. We expect to take on resource allocations, normative work load expectations, and technology integration, among other issues. There are not enough free resources to accomplish all desired outcomes.

Presentations
The Chair of the Distance Education Steering Board made presentations to the following UA groups:

Presidents Cabinet 11-11-2004
Faculty Alliance – November 15, 2004
UAF Chancellor Cabinet – November 29-2004
Information Technology Council – December 17, 2004

Workgroup Activities
All three workgroups have been active immediately following the November 2 organizational meeting. 

Communication Workgroup
Quality Assurance Workgroup
Student Centered Planning Workgroup

ATTACHMENT 127/5
UAF Faculty Senate #127
FEBRUARY 7, 2005
SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS

MOTION:   
======    

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to enhance the Freshmen Progress Reports system to include the following:

       All faculty and instructors teaching 100- and 200-level classes must submit a progress report for all freshmen indicating the grade being earned by the fifth week of the semester.

       All new courses that permit freshmen enrollment must explicitly include the method(s) used to determine freshman mid-semester grades in the syllabus.  The freshmen reporting requirement will be evaluated as part of the curriculum review process.

EFFECTIVE:  	Fall 2005

RATIONALE: 	Freshmen Progress Reports are a crucial part of our student retention plan. UAF is committed to the success of its students by providing an environment conducive to teaching and learning.  The Freshmen Progress Report system (formerly Low Grade Report) was intended to serve as a retention tool to improve students’ persistence and promote survival skills.  It is based on a model that the faculty will be proactive, supportive and involved in facilitating the academic components of student retention.  Faculty awareness of potential student problems constitutes the foundation of this retention program by assisting with the early detection and intervention of students who are doing poorly in class, chronically absent from class (if attendance is an integral part of the learning process), or experiencing other kinds of problems that affect academic performance. 

As L. Noel stated in Increasing Student Retention (1985), “It is the people who come face-to-face with students on a regular basis who provide the positive growth experiences for students that enable them to identify their goals and talents and learn how to put them to use. The caring attitude of college personnel is viewed as the most potent retention force on a campus (p. 17).” 

To augment this important function, incorporating the grading policy and time frame in the syllabus will indicate to students the commitment faculty and instructors have to the success and persistence of UAF students.

ATTACHMENT 127/6
UAF Faculty Senate #127
FEBRUARY 7, 2005
SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve a Certificate and A.A.S. in Construction Trades Technology.  

	EFFECTIVE:  	Fall 2005 and/or
		Upon Board of Regents' Approval.

	RATIONALE: 	See full program proposals #74 & 75 and course 
proposals #57-73 & 146 from the Fall 2004 review cycle 
on file in the Governance Office, 312 Signers' Hall.

Certificate, Construction Trades Technology - Nine credits of general certificate requirements including CTT 106 or TTCH 131; CTT core requirements of CTT 100, 110, 115, HLT 122, and CTT 199 for a total of 38.5 credits; effective Upon BOR approval.  

A.A.S., Construction Trades Technology - General AAS degree requirement of 15 credits including CTT 106 or TTCH 131; completion of certificate requirements (CTT 100, 110, 115, HLTH 122 and CTT 199); and additional courses CTT 170, 175, 150, 155, 299 for a total of 76.5 credits; effective Upon BOR approval.  

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

Brief Statement of the Proposed Program
Certificate and A.A.S. in Construction Trades Technology 

Overview:  Responding to the construction industry and rural Native organizations, the Interior-Aleutians Campus supported by the Northwest Campus and the College of Rural Alaska (CRA) is proposing the Construction Trades Technology (CTT) consisting of a 38.5-credit certificate program, which articulates into an AAS degree program requiring 76.5 credits.  

The Certificate and AAS Program is based upon the National Center for Construction Education and Research requirements for National Certification which provides students the opportunity to enter apprenticeship programs.   The certificate graduate will know construction terminology and have entry-level skills in carpentry.  The AAS Degree will further develop their skills.  Upon completion of the AAS Degree, the student will have basic skills in plumbing and electrical.   Career paths developed and under going development include plumbing, electrical, carpentry, heavy equipment operations, pipeline management, insulating, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), and instrumentation.

The CTT Program was developed in consultation with Native Non-profits and rural organizations, rural campuses and College of Rural Alaska Vocational faculty.  The program responds to the unique vocational educational needs of Alaska’s workforce and the needs of employers.  Currently, each rural region of the state has 20-30 million dollars worth of construction projects.  The rural workforce is not prepared to participate in these projects beyond the general laborer position.  The CTT program offers new opportunities for Alaska’s rural and urban-based students.  

To address the years of construction experience held by many village residents, the CTT program offers opportunities of credit for prior training and experience. 

CRA is working with the Council of Athabascan Governments, an Approved Training Sponsor for the National Center for Construction Education & Research (NCCER).  Through CATG, the students will eligible for entry into the national database.

NCCER is a national organization of construction trade organizations and businesses, which promote training through a nationally standardized and certified curriculum.  This curriculum is constantly reviewed and revised by industry professionals to keep it current with industry standards.  There are several trade organizations in Alaska that endorse this curriculum and promote its use in their training.   For students to be entered on the national registry, they must pass written and hands-on competency tests.  The instructors providing the training must be certified by NCCER as craft proficient in their respective trades.

The mission of the CTT Program is to provide vocational, skill-based education to students through flexible course delivery methods to meet the needs of college and rural Alaska students. 

Objectives of the Proposed CTT Program:
1.	To prepare a cadre of skilled Alaskan workers that meet current workforce deficiencies in construction trades, focusing on the rural worker.  
2.	To contribute to our vocational educated Alaskan Workforce by providing a program that links work-based skills and hands-on learning to postsecondary education, particularly in rural Alaska in keeping with the university mission.   
3.	To provide a career ladder beyond entry-level to an underemployed rural workforce, particularly Alaska Native men, who are also under-represented at the university.  

REGENTS GUIDELINES		                                                        

Board of Regents Summary Form

MAU:	University of Alaska Fairbanks 
College of Rural Alaska, Interior-Aleutians Campus

Title and brief description:	

Associate of Applied Science Degree- Construction Trades Technology
Certificate- Construction Trades Technology
				
Target Admission Date: Fall 2005

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

The mission of the CTT Program is to provide vocational, skill-based education to students through site-based instruction and flexible course scheduling in order to meet the needs of site-bound underemployed Alaskan who otherwise would not have access to vocational post-secondary programs and who are under-represented within the UA system.  To this end, this program meets the vocational-technical educational responsibility of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, and the following UAF 2005 Strategic Plan Goals:  
•	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 premier higher educational center for Alaska Natives.  
•	Serve as a model to demonstrate how gender, racial, and cultural diversity to strengthen a university and society.  

Describe the State Needs being met by this program.

Construction industry as shown by Department of Labor statistics has a high level by non-residents or foreign workers.   According to Table 2-D, (See appendix A, nonresident workers received over $69.5 million by working in Alaska.  The proposed training will allow Alaskans who chose to reside in rural Alaska to keep some of this money and spend in the local economy.  

According to Bristol Bay Housing Authority historical project records, persons who do not live in the immediate village fill over 50% of the jobs for new housing construction.  This is consistent throughout rural Alaska.  Specifically, specialized trades which include electricians, plumbers, lead carpenters, painters, and sheetrock workers have been imported.  Modernization work on homes yields a greater percentage of local workers, however, the highest Davis Bacon wage rates are usually paid to non-resident specialists who install boilers, electrical services, painters, and plumbers.

The training provided in this proposal meets several of the top 25 occupations with the most projected annual job openings (1998-2008).  It also provides training for occupations listed on the Private Sector, State, and local Government list of occupations with the largest number of nonresident workers (2000). 

Many of the state and federal grants focus on training workers in the construction trades.   This program targeted students residing in areas where millions of dollars have been or will be budgeted over the coming years for infrastructure construction and upgrades.  

What are the Student opportunities and outcomes?  The enrollment projections?

The CTT program provides a career ladder opportunity for Alaskans to enter or upgrade their skills in various construction trades.  At the present time, concentration areas include carpentry, plumbing, electrical, and a village construction technician.   The program will be expanded to include insulating, heavy equipment operations, instrumentation, and pipeline maintenance.

Enrollment Estimates CRA wide:

Year	Headcount*	
05-06	285	
06-07	370	
07-08	481	
08-09	530	
09-10	583	

					* Includes both full and part time

Describe the Research opportunities, if applicable.

While research is not a primary focus of this program, the delivery modes and utilization of certified craft instructors make the program a unique model.  The instructors have been involved in their respective trades and bring years of experience to the classroom.  Using this knowledge and experience, coupled with the unique lifestyle and experience in rural Alaska, present many opportunities to research and test urban construction techniques compared with local methods, customs, and techniques.  This will allow knowledge to flow both directions and complement the training.

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

The primary faculty/coordinator will be hired through the Interior-Aleutian Campus.   Faculty teaching the non-construction classes will be existing faculty of the rural extended campuses.  Additional instructors teaching the construction trade classes will be adjunct instructors certified by NCCER.

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

The faculty/coordinator for the CTT Program may reside anywhere within the region served by the Interior-Aleutian Campus.   College of Rural Alaska community campuses and villages will provide classroom space for CTT training sessions.   Most of the instruction will take place in facilities provided by the community in which the training is taking place.  Where Blackboard training has/is offered, school districts and villages have made computers and the Internet available to the students.
		
For urban training, sites will be located and utilized where there are requests.  Discussions with Association of Builders and Contractors of Alaska, Inc. (ABC) and their members have started to determine how UAF can provide their training needs.

Resource Commitment to Proposed Degree Program
Resources	Existing
College/School	New	Total	
		College/School 	Others(Specify)		
Regular Faculty (FTE’s & dollars)			.5 FTE @ $40,949
(Title III Year 1)
.5 FTE @ $43,446
(HUD Year 1) 	
$84,395
plus fringe	
Adjunct Faculty (FTE’s & dollars)			$8,476
(Title III for 1 summer and 1 adjunct faculty in “gatekeeper” courses.)
$62,100
(HUD Year 1 for 7 adjunct faculty)	
$70,576
plus fringe	
Teaching Assistants
(Headcount)					
Instructional Facilities
(in dollars and/or sq. footage)			Classes offered either in Rural Centers or in low-cost or free facilities in rural villages	Estimated in-kind value:
$15,000	
Office Space
(Sq. footage)
	240 sf office in Harper Building			Estimated in-kind value: $600	
Lab Space
(Sq. Footage)			N/A		
Computer & Networking 
(in dollars)	Use of existing connectivity, hardware and software at IAC			Estimated in-kind value:
$2,000	
Research/
instructional/ office Equipment
(in dollars)			N/A		
Support Staff
(FTE’s & dollars)
			.25  FTE Program Assistant @  
$6,476
(Title III Year 1)	
$6,476
	
Supplies 
(in dollars)
			$1,000
(Title III Year 1)
$13,129 (student tools)
 (HUD Year 1)	

$14,129
	
Travel
(in dollars)			$1,000 
(Title III Year 1)
$23,865
 (HUD Year 1)	
$24,865	
Totals				$218,041	

ATTACHMENT 127/7
UAF Faculty Senate #127
FEBRUARY 7, 2005
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY AFFAIRS

MOTION:
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend Section 1 (ART III: Membership) of the UAF Faculty Senate By-laws to add a paragraph on recall as follows:  

[[   ]] - Deletions
CAPS - Additions

F. 	RECALL

1.	UNETHICAL AND/OR UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT BY ANY ELECTED OFFICER OR MEMBER OF THE SENATE MAY CONSTITUTE A CAUSE FOR A VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE AND HENCE A RECALL. IN ORDER TO RECALL AN ELECTED OFFICER OR MEMBER, A TWO-THIRDS VOTE IS REQUIRED AND CANNOT OCCUR SOONER THAN 28 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE MEETING AT WHICH THE RECALL WAS FIRST READ AND DISCUSSED.

	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediate, Upon Chancellor Approval

RATIONALE:  	To preserve Faculty Senate's integrity and to assure that the members and/or officers of the Senate are held at highest professional, academic, and ethical standards.

ATTACHMENT 127/8
UAF Faculty Senate #127
FEBRUARY 7, 2005
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY AFFAIRS

MOTION:
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to recommend the amendment of Regents' Policy 10.06.01-02 (Assessment) as recommended by SAC and the Faculty Affairs Committee. 

	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately

RATIONALE:  	The proposed policy change simply mandates regular assessment of all academic programs. Each MAU conducts "outcomes assessment" and "program review" both of which are well defined and meet the regional accreditation standards.  Therefore, Faculty Affairs approves the changes as indicated.

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

REGENTS’ POLICY	P10.06.01

PART X
ACADEMIC POLICY
CHAPTER VI
Assessment

A.  Program Review	P10.06.01

Each MAU will conduct recurring, comprehensive review of academic and administrative programs.

B.	Definition of Program

The programs to be evaluated and against which the assessment criteria are applied are academic and administrative programs, services, or functions which have one or more of the following characteristics:

1.	a general or academic administrative unit, auxiliary, academic or student support service, or other distinct administrative unit, service or support function (such a unit might have the word "campus," "college," "school," "department," "center," "office," "institute," "station," "division," "council," "service," "program," "research unit," or similar term as a part of its title, or be headed by a person entitled "dean," "director," "chair," "head," "coordinator," "manager," "leader," "vice chancellor," "vice president," or similar title);

2.	a degree or certificate program approved by the Board of Regents; a discipline; a minor; a distinct option, emphasis, or track within an academic program; or a sequence of specific academic requirements leading to another type of credential or certification; or,

3.	other distinct functions or activities of the University approved by the legislature, Board of Regents, chancellor, or president.

Educational Effectiveness	P10.06.02

Each program will conduct ongoing outcomes assessment.    

MAUs will describe achievements expected of their students and adopt reliable procedures for assessing those achievements.  Assessment outcomes will be used in program and institutional planning.

ATTACHMENT 127/9
UAF Faculty Senate #127
FEBRUARY 7, 2005
SUBMITTED BY UNIT CRITERIA

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve the Unit Criteria for Natural Sciences (CNSM).  

	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately
				Upon Chancellor Approval

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

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

January 23, 2005

UAF REGULATIONS FOR THE EVALUATION OF FACULTY:
ANNUAL REVIEW, PRE-AND POST-TENURE,
PROMOTION, TENURE REVIEW 

AND

NATURAL SCIENCES 
UNIT CRITERIA

THE FOLLOWING IS AN ADAPTATION OF UAF AND BOARD OF REGENTS (BOR) CRITERIA FOR ANNUAL REVIEW, PRE- AND POST-TENURE, PROMOTION, AND TENURE REVIEW, SPECIFICALLY DEVELOPED FOR USE IN EVALUATING NATURAL SCIENCE FACULTY IN CNSM.  ITEMS IN BOLDFACE CAPITAL LETTERS ARE THOSE SPECIFICALLY ADDED OR EMPHASIZED BECAUSE OF THEIR RELEVANCE TO CNSM FACULTY, AND BECAUSE THEY ARE ADDITIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS TO UAF REGULATIONS. The CNSM Mathematical, Statistics and Computer Science Disciplines Criteria are submitted as a separate document. 

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.

II.  Initial Appointment of Faculty

A.  Criteria for Initial Appointment.  Minimum degree, experience and performance   requirements are set forth in UAF Faculty 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 and reside within a specific discipline.  Units wishing to appoint academic rank faculty within schools and colleges to titles must have the concurrence of the specific discipline in which the title resides.

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 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 affirmative action policies 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 affirmative action policies, and shall provide for participation in hiring by faculty and administrators in the unit.  These procedures shall be on file in the Chancellor’s Office.

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 his/her 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, 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, the part(s) defining the position may not.  Subsequent letters of appointment may vary the work load distribution and nature of the assignment.

III.   PERIODIC EVALUATION OF FACULTY

A.   General Criteria and Definitions
Criteria as outlined in "UAF Faculty Appointment and Evaluation Policies" Chapter IV AND NATURAL SCIENCES UNIT CRITERIA, STANDARDS, AND INDICES, evaluators may consider, but shall not be limited to, whichever of the following are appropriate to the faculty members' 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.  As used in these procedures, unless otherwise specified, the following terms shall mean:

1. “Faculty.” Those persons who have accepted and hold appointment to academic rank or special academic rank.

2. “Academic Ranks.” Ranks held by persons having the title of professor, associate professor, and assistant professor.  These titles denote academic rank exclusively.  The title of instructor may also be a title of academic rank at the discretion of the policies and procedures approved for each university; or when included in the description of membership in the relevant Article of a collective bargaining agreement.  Faculty holding academic rank are eligible for promotion and tenure.

3. “Special academic ranks.” Ranks held by persons having the following title and the qualification specified:

Lecturer:   employed to teach full- or part-time; or titles of academic rank preceded by:

Adjunct:    employed to teach on or more courses up t o15 credit hours per year, or other academic assignment at less than 50 percent of a full-time appointment;

Affiliate:   voluntary faculty service, not employed by the university;

Visiting:     employed to perform the faculty functions expected of academic		rank for a specific period;

Research:  supported primarily by grant funding;

Clinical:    special category reserved for practitioners in the health care		delivery professions.

These titles denote special academic rank exclusively.  The title of instructor may also be a title for special academic rank at the discretion of the policies and procedures approved for each university; or when included in the description of membership in the relevant Article of a collective bargaining agreement.

4. “Tenure.”  The status of holding a faculty appointment on a continuing basis following evaluation and award according to the terms of Chapter IV and BOR Policy 04.04.04.B.

5. “Tenure track position.”  A tenure track position is one which may lead to consideration for appointment to tenure as described in the policies and procedures for each university.  A tenure track position requires the performance of faculty function at least 50% of full-time.  For exceptional case, and when in the judgment of the Chancellor the best interests of the university will be served, a faculty member may be appointed to a tenure track position at less than 100% but more than 50% of a full-time appointment.

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 WILL DEMONSTRATE SOME, BUT NOT NECESSARILY ALL, OF THE FOLLOWING CHARACTERISTICS IN AN INDIVIDUAL YEAR:

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;

Specific Natural Sciences criteria for teaching performance:

•	Assistant Professor:  Evidence of teaching ability and a commitment to a quality and current teaching program in the department.    

•	Associate Professor:  The record must show that the teaching material is contemporary and relevant and that the presentations stimulate the learning process.  Evidence of the expected quality of instructional performance may include (but not is limited to) course and/or curriculum development, novel approaches to instruction, versatility in instructional assignments, effective guiding and mentoring of individual students, and high quality classroom teaching performance.     

•	Professor:  Significant contributions to the instructional program are expected.  These may include contributions to major improvements in course and curriculum offerings, ability to motivate or inspire students, and exemplary training of graduate students including success in graduating students.  Both faculty and students must consider the teaching performance to be of high quality.      

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 observations,

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, Fairbanks, and elsewhere. 

1.   Achievement in Research, Scholarly, and Creative Activity

Whatever the contribution, research, scholarly or creative activities must have one or more 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 works at galleries; selection for these exhibitions being based on rigorous review and approval by juries, recognized artists, or critics; 

e.   Performance 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, SOPHISTICATED COMPUTER MODELS THAT HELP IN THE UNDERSTANDING OF COMPLEX SYSTEMS, and systems for the processing of data, genetic plant and animal material, and where appropriate, obtaining patents and/or copyrights for said development.

Specific Criteria for Natural Science research performance:

•	Assistant Professor: Evidence of the ability to establish a viable research program in the area of specialization, normally a sub-discipline of the natural sciences (with the option of research in science education).

•	Associate Professor: Must have established an appropriate research program that produces significant publications in refereed professional journals.  Presentation of research results at professional meetings, the submission of research proposals, and the acquisition of external research funding constitute supplementary evidence that the research is of high quality.  The faculty member should show independence and leadership by the creation of research ideas that translate into projects that involve both graduate and undergraduate students.

•	Professor: The research program should have produced a sufficient number of publications in the refereed professional literature, and there should be a record of student involvement including successful mentoring of Ph.D. students.  The publications should be of sufficient quality and quantity to demonstrate the existence of an on-going, professional, independent research program.  An international reputation (as demonstrated by professional activities or presentations at meetings and by citations of publications or documented opinions of other scientists in the field) is expected.

D. Criteria for Public and University Service and PROFESSIONAL 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 assume 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 activity 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 a systematic activity that involves planning with clientele and delivery of information on a continuing, programmatic basis.  It may also be informal, individual, or 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 and 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, INCLUDING UNPAID 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 and interviews, 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 activities 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 accrediting 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, INCLUDING MENTORING NEW FACULTY;

j.   Prizes and awards for excellence in university service.

3.  PROFESSIONAL SERVICE

a.   Editing or refereeing articles or proposals for professional journals or organizations; (IF NOT COUNTED AS RESEARCH; SEE C.2.F.)

b.   Active participation in professional organizations;

c   Active participation in discipline-oriented service organizations;

d.   COMMITTEE CHAIR OR OFFICER OF PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS;

e.   SESSION ORGANIZER OR MODERATOR FOR PROFESSIONAL MEETINGS.

4. Evaluation of Service
Each 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, university, and PROFESSIONAL service may be demonstrated through, e.g., appropriate letters of commendation, recommendation, and/or appreciation, certificates and awards, and other public means of recognition for services rendered.  

Specific Natural Sciences criteria for science service performance:

Assistant Professor: None in addition to UAF criteria.

Associate Professor: Positive contribution to departmental and/or university matters, effective professional contributions to the public, and/or effective service to the profession are expected.

Professor: Evidence of leadership in the service area is mandatory. Significant contributions to the development of departmental and/or university programs are expected, including service to the general public and Alaska teachers.

Measures of effectiveness of performance include (but are not limited to):

•	Accomplishments of the effort of organization to which service was provided.
•	Official recognition of quality of service (e.g., awards, letters of recommendation).
•	Opinions of clients served and/or colleagues involved in delivery of service.

Curatorial Service

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 at CNSM, 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; 

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 service 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:

a.	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.

b.	Collections care includes responsibility for the physical condition and storage of objects/specimens, corresponding documentation, budgetary management, and annual reports.

1.	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.

2.	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.

3.	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. 

4.	Curators will develop, maintain, and revise written policies and procedures for caution of objects or specimens in their collections.

c.	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.

d.	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. 

ATTACHMENT 127/9
UAF Faculty Senate #127
FEBRUARY 7, 2005
SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE

MOTION:======
The UAF Faculty Senate moves to override the veto of the motion to amend Section 3, (Article V, Committees, Standing) of the Bylaws pertaining to membership and adding the Faculty Research Oversight Committee. 
	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately

	RATIONALE:  

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

ORIGINAL MOTION:=============The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend Section 3, (Article V, Committees, Standing) of the Bylaws pertaining to membership and adding the Faculty Research Oversight Committee. 
[[  ]] =  DeletionCAPS = Addition
Sect. 3  	(ART V:  Committees)
B.	Membership on standing and permanent committees will be for two years except as noted below with the possibility of re-appointment. The initial appointment or re-appointment is made by the Administrative Committee or as specified in the definition of a Permanent Committee and confirmed by the full Senate.  [[Senators are limited to serving on a maximum of one standing committee at any one time.]]  To provide continuity, terms will be staggered and an initial appointment may be made for one or two years as determined by the Administrative Committee based on need.

	STANDING

	8.	Faculty Research Oversight Committee
	The Faculty Research Oversight Committee shall review all classified and proprietary proposals, grants, and contracts according to the guidelines of the UAF Policy concerning Classified and Proprietary Research and advise the chancellor of their compliance or lack thereof with university policy.  The committee will publish an annual report on the status of classified and proprietary contracts, grants and proposals at UAF to the Faculty Senate. The Faculty Research Oversight Committee will offer changes to the UAF policy as needed through periodic reviews occurring no less than once every 5 years.

	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.

EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately
RATIONALE:  	The new UAF Policy Concerning Classified and Proprietary Research calls for the Faculty Senate to establish a Faculty Research Oversight Committee to review all proposals and make recommendations to the chancellor for action.  The policy includes guidelines for the review process.
The number of Faculty Senate committees has increased to a level that may require some of the senators to serve on more than one committee.  Therefore, restrictions on committee membership on standing committees are removed.

ATTACHMENT 127/11
UAF Faculty Senate #127
FEBRUARY 7, 2005
SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS

Curricular Affairs Committee         MINUTES
Monday, January 31st  2-3:15 p.m     NSF Runcorn Room

Present: Steve Cysewski, Katrin Iken, Jeannette Smith, Yuri Shur, Tim Stickel, Gayle Gregory, Wanda Martin, Rainer Newberry, guest Ron Illingworth

1. Motion to approve a Certificate and A.A.S. in Construction Trades Technology
   Carol B. and Steve C. agreed to work with Ron in getting this straightened out.  The attached document is Ron’s 2 page summary of Q’s & A’s.  The key issues concern the departmental organization (‘who’s in charge?’) within CRA.  Ron shyly (slyly?) admitted that he was, in fact, the program manager and that this duty was 1/5 of his workload.   The degree would be administered by the Interior-Aleutians campus for at least the first five years of its existence.
   Motion to approve the certificate program and AAS degree passed unanimously.

2.   Report RE ‘s’ designators.  Given the slew of new requests for ‘s’ designators and criteria for such that are (at best) vague, Phyllis Morrow (Dean, CLA) was asked to, and put together a select committee to examine the problem and make recommendations to this committee.  Jeanette volunteered to be on the committee; she reported on the committee’s recommendations.  These were to either:
a.	Designate separately ‘s’ courses that could be used for AA (as opposed to BA) degrees.
b.	Create a select committee with reps from CLA, SM, and CRA to oversee the ‘s’ designators.
c.	Define ‘s’ courses as those taught by specific departments that are composed of social science faculty (e.g., Economics, Anthro, Soc, Geogr, etc.)

Of these 3 recommendations, the committee totally trashed the 1st and debated between the 2nd and 3rd.    The committee agreed to take up the issue again next meeting, allowing the full committee to consider the proposals and their implications.

3.  ‘In order to enroll in a course a student must either earn a grade of ‘C’ or better in all prerequisite courses or secure the permission of the instructor.’  The initial impetus for this proposed motion was the efforts of Math to improve the ability of students to pass math courses as well as the recent changes in SoM ugrad requirements.  Essentially the question is: should such be done department by department, school/college by school/college, or is tightening up requirements for meeting pre-reqs something UAF as a whole should consider in one fell swoop?   At our last meeting we said that we’d consider this proposal formally as a motion for the Fac Senate at this meeting.  In the intervening month there was considerable reconsideration of the value and practicability of this suggestion.  After considerable discussion it was recognized that we were relatively clueless about what faculty as a whole wanted.  Rainer agreed to contact Deans and ask them to solicit opinions from departments to send on to our committee.  As it’s hard to argue with the merits of becoming less clueless, the committee agreed to this approach.

4.  Having shot our intellectual quiver and run out of time, the committee unanimously agreed to adjourn.

ATTACHMENT 127/12
UAF Faculty Senate #127
FEBRUARY 7, 2005
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY AFFAIRS

Faculty Affairs Committee
Monday, January 10, 2005

The committee discussed several issues during the meeting as follows:  

1. SAC Proposal: Revision of UA P10.06.01 and P10.05.03 and corresponding regulation.  
FA basically agrees with SAC proposal and is comfortable with the changes proposed by SAC.  

2. FS Bylaw Change-motion: 
After a significant discussion regarding what constitutes as majority (members present, total membership, quorum etc.), FA members believe that a recall issue should not be treated lightly and should not be done on a spontaneous basis. If such a situation is to arise in future, the senate must give its membership enough notice and put it on agenda so that the entire membership of FS is aware of it and have an opportunity to attend such a meeting or send an alternate. The bottom line is, there should be 2/3 majority of entire senate membership for a recall to be valid. The motion below reflects such a change. 

3. Classified Research: Swazo Letter to Chancellor: 
This is an issue we just began discussions and will need some clarifications. The issues raised are as follows:
a. FA and FS have spent over three years of time in coming up with a policy that was unanimously approved by FS.
b. What are (if we know) reasons given by Chancellor Jones in denying approval of this policy?
c. Should FA/FS decide to override Chancellor Jones's denial, what does that mean? This still could be an impasse, as FA believes President can still override the senate. We need some clarification on this.
d. FA looks at this policy as two parts, procedural issues and substantive issues. We do not feel like opening the procedural issues as three years of hard work went into it, including the recommended reconciliation committee. Unless, we know the reasoning, it's difficult to make forward progress on this issue.

4. Health on Campus (IAB Faculty e-mail):
First of all, we do not believe it's an issue to be taken over by FA. Perhaps, it belongs to some other committee. However, we have a few opinions we would like to share:

a. How much (if any) UAF funds are wrapped up in this?
b. What benefits UAF receives? Does UAF receive anything back from the vending companies/distributors?
c. Is it possible to add/offer healthier alternatives alongside what we currently offer?

Shirish Patil

ATTACHMENT 127/13
UAF Faculty Senate #127
FEBRUARY 7, 2005
SUBMITTED BY COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN

Committee on the Status of Women

Minutes for the meetings of January 18 and 24, 2005

Attending:
Joan Braddock, Uma Bhatt, Carol Gold, Charley Basham, Qwynten Richards, Joy Morrison, Denise Thorsen, Sine Anahita, David Koester, Jane Weber, Cindy Hardy, and a reporter from the Sun Star

Final revisions were made to the survey on faculty work life.

Sine will send revised versions of significantly altered questions in Word format for review by committee members.  

Sine will meet with Jane and Carol to proof and finalize the revised version.

The survey is scheduled to be sent out on February 15.
 
The next meeting of the committee is planned for February 21, 1-2:30.  

ATTACHMENT 127/14
UAF Faculty Senate #127
FEBRUARY 7, 2005
SUBMITTED BY CORE REVIEW

Report of the Core Review Committee
Submitted by Douglas Schamel, Chair

January 24, 2005
Members present: Jin Brown, Susan Hahn, Jonathan Rosenberg, Alexei Rybkin, Douglas Schamel.
Guests: Wanda Martin

1.Jonathan Rosenberg provided an update on the CLA ad hoc committee that is examining the “Perspectives”.  
First, let me provide some historical background.  The Core Review Committee had spent several weeks during Fall 2003 grappling with the philosophical intent of the Perspectives.  We also attempted to address the issue of whether UAF students would be better served by broadening the options for fulfilling this portion of the Core.
	The discussion bore no additional insights, nor moved us any closer to resolution.  We halted these discussions.  Dean Morrow asked CLA faculty to address this issue during Spring 2004.  These discussions continued during Fall 2004.
	Dr. Rosenberg informed the Core Review Committee that the ad hoc committee was also having difficulties resolving the issue.  They have examined both the underlying philosophy and the specific courses that constitute the Perspectives.  At this point in time, after much discussion and debate, it appears that the status quo is prevailing.  They have now turned their attention to the UA system Table of Substitutions, and will hopefully suggest modifications this spring.
	The Core Review Committee applauds their efforts, and appreciates the time they spent examining this controversial issue.

2.We began a discussion of potential revisions to the assessment of “W” and “O” courses that would help determine if the instructional goals have been met.  Currently, the assessment of these courses merely examines the process involved.  Derek Burleson, ENGL, was ill and not able to attend the meeting; he will be integral in this discussion and implementation.  We will continue this discussion next time.

3.Two petitions were approved; one was not approved.  

The petition that was not approved requested a waiver of the two-course Core science requirement because the student had completed one course with two lab sessions per week & one course with no lab sessions per week.  These courses had been completed elsewhere.  The student reasoned that they had completed the same number of lab sessions as if they had completed two lab courses, each with a lab.  We did not approve this petition because: 1) the intent of the requirement is that the student is exposed to labs in two separate courses, and 2) the course with labs was an anatomy course that had minimal (if any) experimental labs.

ATTACHMENT 127/15
UAF Faculty Senate #127
FEBRUARY 7, 2005
SUBMITTED BY GRADUATE ACADEMIC & ADVISORY COMMITTEE

GAAC Minutes for January 24, 2005

Members in Attendance:  Cathy Cahill, Mary Ehrlander (chair), Patty Gray, Russ Hopcroft, Joan Parker-Webster,  Richard Wies				
Ex-Officio in Attendance:  Susan Henrichs, Gayle Gregory, Pauline Wilson
Graduate Students in Attendance:  Bob Bolton

Meeting dates set:	February 8, 22; March 1, 22; 	April 5, 12, 19
	Note:  Meetings will be held in the Kayak Room.  

Re: Review of Psychology Ph.D.
•	We will review the program itself before going over individual course requests
•	Mary will make sure Catherine Koverola (and others from Psych?) can be at the meetings as we review the program and individual courses
•	Susan will inform Catherine K of the concerns she’s heard regarding the proportion of research in the program and let her know that
o	Psychology should be prepared to defend this as a Ph.D. program
•	Susan is checking into the standards for research within Ph.D. programs in the country
o	The catalogue currently states that 3 years beyond the Bachelors level and 18 credits of thesis are required.
o	She noted that we might consider increasing the number of required thesis credits to 36, though she didn’t recommend that per se
•	Cathy asked whether funding for the program was assured, provided it gets approval up the ladder.
o	Susan responded that funding was not guaranteed but that
•	Psych was getting a lot of encouragement from statewide
•	We shouldn’t really concern ourselves with the funding; we should focus on the academic merit of the program.
•	Susan also noted in response to a question about the fate of the MA in Psych that UAF was suspending it in anticipation of beginning the Ph.D. program, but that UAA was very firmly behind their MA and would continue it in either case.
•	We cannot account for Psych course requests 44, 46, 47, 48, 58, 59, 67, 68, 71.  I will contact Christ, Jennifer and Ron Barry to see whether they have them.

We approved SFOS Trial Course request  (blue #3) entitled Communicating Fisheries Research.

We will consider expanding list of “minor course changes” and will ask Sheri and Gayle for suggestions.