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

For Audioconferencing:  Access#:  1-800-519-1987    
Meeting#:  *1791514*

A G E N D A
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #131
Monday, September 19, 2005
1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.
Wood Center Conference Room C/D

1:00	I	Call to Order – Paul Layer 				  5 Min.
		A.	Roll Call
		B.	Approval of Minutes to Meeting #130
		C.	Adoption of Agenda

1:05	II	Status of Chancellor's Office Actions 		  5 Min.
	A.	Motions Approved:
1.	Motion on Academic Calendar for 2006-2007. 
2.	Motion on Facilitating a UA Academic Calendar with a Common Start Week.  
3.	Motion on earning only one degree in a specific discipline. 
4.	Motion to amend the Course Designation/Classification Criteria for Social Science "s" designators.    
5.	Motion to amend the Section 1 (Article III:  Membership) and Section 3 (Article V: Committees) of the Bylaws to add union representation to the Faculty Senate and Faculty Affairs Committee
6.	Motion to approve the Unit Criteria for the Fisheries Division (SFOS). 
7.	Motion to approve the Unit Criteria for the Institute of Marine Science (SFOS). 
8.	Motion to approve the Unit Criteria for the Fisheries Industrial Technology Center (SFOS). 
9.	Motion on the UAF Academic Calendar. 
	B.	Motions Pending:  none
	C.	Motions Approved by the Administrative Committee:
	1.	Resolution on Senior Tuition Waiver (Attachment 131/1)

1:10 	III	Public Comments/Questions 				  5 Min.

1:15	IV	President's Comments - Paul Layer    		10 Min. 
		President-elect's Report - Shirish Patil 		  5 Min.

1:30	V	A.	Remarks by Chancellor Steve Jones  		10 Min.
		B.	Remarks by Provost P. Reichardt		15 Min.
			Summary Report of 2004/2005 Faculty Reviews
			(Attachment 131/2)

1:55	VI	Governance Reports					  5 Min. 
	A.	Staff Council - Maya Salgenak 
	B.	ASUAF -Joseph Blanchard 
C.	GSO - Susan Hazlett

2:00	VII	Guest Speaker						15 Min.
	A.	Ted Kassier, Senior Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs

2:15	VIII	New Business						10 Min.
	A.	Motion on Committee Gender Representation, submitted 
by the Committee on the Status of Women 
(Attachment 131/3)

2:25	IX	Discussion Items   					10 Min.
	A.	Occupational Certificates of Completion (Attachment 131/4)

2:35	X	Committee Reports 					20 Min.
	A.	Curricular Affairs - Rainer Newberry
	B.	Faculty Affairs - Jon Genetti (Attachment 131/5)
	C.	Unit Criteria - Glenn Chappell
	D.	Committee on the Status of Women - Jane Weber 
(Attachment 131/6)
	E.	Core Review - Mark Box
	F.	Curriculum Review - Rainer Newberry
	G.	Developmental Studies - Cindy Hardy (Attachment 131/7)
	H.	Faculty Appeals & Oversight - Larry Duffy
	I.	Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement - Lee Haugen
		(Attachment 131/8)
	J.	Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee - Cathy Cahill 
		(Attachment 131/9)

2:55	XI	Members' Comments/Questions			10 Min.

3:05	XII	Adjournment

ATTACHMENT 131/1
UAF Faculty Senate #131
September 19, 2005

The UAF Faculty Senate Administrative Committee passed the following on August 26, 2005:

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

Supporting Continuation of the UA Senior Tuition Waiver

WHEREAS, The University of Alaska established a program to provide tuition waivers for seniors 60 years of age or older who register on a space available basis; that is, when courses can accommodate such students in addition to all tuition-paying students; 

WHEREAS, Seniors 60 or older who receive this tuition waiver still pay all incidental costs for their classes including books, lab, student government/activity, and parking fees;

WHEREAS, The presence of seniors in University of Alaska classes is a significant benefit to younger students because of the life experience and often different world view that seniors have compared to younger students;

WHEREAS, The University of Alaska major academic units are striving to enhance their fundraising capabilities, with seniors leading the demographic group most likely to donate to the institutions; and

WHEREAS, Relatively little fiscal analysis has been done that would allow a cost-benefit analysis of this proposal to discontinue the senior tuition waiver; such an analysis would take into account at least the inelasticity of the demand for courses under this program, the lost fee revenues, and, perhaps most significantly, the potential to lose major donations to the institution as a result of this policy change; now 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the UAF Faculty Senate supports continuation of the senior tuition waiver, and recommends the University Statewide Administration look at alternative measures to reduce the supposed cost impacts of the program.

ATTACHMENT 131/2
UAF Faculty Senate #131
September 19, 2005

SUMMARY REPORT OF 2004-2005 FACULTY REVIEWS

Paul Reichardt

Promotion/Mandatory Tenure and Mandatory Tenure Only

8 files:  7 yes, 1 no
7 yes at all stages of review
1 no at all stages of review 

Promotion/Early Tenure and Early Tenure Only

17 files: 17 yes
15 yes at all stages of review
1 yes at all stages except unit peer committee
1 yes at unit peer, campuswide, and chancellor levels*
*  additional information added to file in response to provost’s recommendation
		years before mandatory review	# files
1	5
2	6
3	3
4	0
5	3*
*  In 2002 all three individuals were put on tenure track after a number of years as term faculty

Promotion

11 files:  9 yes, 2 no
9 yes at all stages of review
	1 no at director, campuswide, provost, and chancellor levels of review
	1 no at campuswide, provost, and chancellor levels

Fourth Year Comprehensive Review (UNAC-represented faculty only)

25 files
	20 satisfactory progress at all stages of review
	5 unsatisfactory progress at one or more stages of review
	4 designated as “needs improvement” by provost
	
Post-Tenure Review

37 files submitted
	31 satisfactory progress at all stages of review
	6 portions of workload responsibilities were judged unsatisfactory by campuswide and/or provost

Observations:

a.	“Early” applications for promotion to Associate Professor and tenure continue to outnumber applications during the mandatory year.  However, reviewers of these files gave almost unanimous endorsement of the application for promotion/tenure in each “early” case; so it appears that the 4th year comprehensive review is providing good guidance to faculty in terms of their progress toward promotion and tenure.
b.	“Vagueness” appears to be the most problematic part of our promotion/tenure process.  The first issue is local unit criteria.  In the absence of such criteria, committees and administrators must rely on UAF criteria.  In practice, reviewers find this to be difficult; and disappointed candidates often find rationales based on the UAF criteria to be vague and hard to understand.  The second issue is the written rationale for recommendations, especially those coming from unit peer committees.  In a number of instances, especially in 4th year comprehensive review files, the written recommendations do not reference the relevant criteria and do not really explain the reasoning behind the overall recommendation.  It is especially important that recommendations on 4th year comprehensive review files be clear and specific.  
c.	Deans and Directors need to examine each file that has been submitted before passing it on to the unit peer review committee.  The initial examination should be used to ensure that all required materials are in the file.  The types of documents that have been left out of some files include dean/director annual reviews, IAS reports, comments (from at least the provost, but ideally all levels) from 4th year comprehensive review (for promotion/tenure candidates), and the dean’s 3rd year review (for post-tenure review files).

September 6, 2005

TO:		Deans and Directors

FROM:	Paul Reichardt
		Provost

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

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

1.	Before sending any files to unit peer committees, you should examine the file’s contents and add any required documents that are missing.  Examples of documents missing from last year’s files include IAS forms and summary statements from previous relevant reviews (e.g., 4th year comprehensive review comments missing from a promotion/tenure file).
2.	 Any “promises” made by deans, directors or department chairs at time of hire should be addressed by both the candidate (in his/her file) and by reviewers (especially deans, directors, department chairs).
3.	Peer committees need clear written statements on identities of individual members, eligibility for membership, and procedures.
4.	Unit level peer committees have the responsibility to carry out and report on an in-depth analysis of each candidate’s performance.  Analysis, not data summary, should be their focus.  Examples might be:  analysis of IAS results to determine why “Dr. Smith” is a good teacher rather than statistical analysis of “average IAS score for entry number three”; analysis of multiple authorship and significance of “Dr. Smith’s” key publications rather than simply reporting the number of peer-reviewed articles that Smith has published.
5.	Unit criteria supplement, but do not replace, UAF criteria.  Recommendations should be based upon explicitly cited criteria.  Vague statements of support for or recommendation against promotion and/or tenure are not particularly useful.  
6.	Deans and directors should describe the process used to select the two external reviewers designated by the dean or director.  All reviewers of the file need to know if these two individuals were suggested by the candidate or chosen by another method.
7.	Peer committees should carefully consider the recommendations written for faculty undergoing Fourth Year Comprehensive Review.  Each recommendation to a junior faculty member undergoing 4th year review should be carefully written to give the faculty member a good idea of what (s)he must accomplish in order to have a credible case for tenure/promotion.  Highly supportive letters from peer committees to these candidates almost certainly elicit promotion/tenure applications from those individuals in the following year.  This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but committees need to be aware of the phenomenon as they determine the tone of the letter to a junior faculty member who is doing well.  

MEMORANDUM

Date:	January 25, 2005
To: 	Dr. Paul Reichardt, Provost
From:	Post-Tenure Review Committee
	David Valentine, co-chair
	Lawrence Kaplan, co-chair
	Charles Crapo
	Claude Duguay
	John Ma
	Brenton Watkins
	Bob Wheeler
Re:	Post-tenure review letters and suggestions for future

Please find attached the letters to the candidates from the 2005 UAF Post-Tenure Review Committee (hereinafter "the committee").  The committee also was asked to provide suggestions for future iterations.  We offer the following four:  

1.	Some of the files were grossly incomplete or so poorly prepared that attempts to extract relevant information consumed disproportionate amounts of time and effort.  We have noted in the letters which files were particularly difficult.  Due diligence requires similarly disproportionate time consumption at every other level of the review process.  In the future, we suggest that a mechanism be instituted to reject such files during the unit peer committee review. 
2.	With a diverse campus such as UAF, it is impossible for a university wide committee to evaluate files if they do not include unit criteria in them.  While we recognize that this is a post-tenure review rather than evaluation for tenure or promotion, such guidelines would be helpful for this committee to use in providing feedback to the candidates.  
3.	Fostering excellence in teaching is a prime directive of any evaluative process in the academy, and this requires some assessment of the degree of success obtained by faculty.  Yet the only data the committee consistently received was a summary of the courses taught--course number, name, and credit hours.  It would be useful if files included the Instructional Assessment System forms as well.  
4.	With increasing numbers of team-taught courses, it is important to the review process that faculty participation be clearly quantified.  In some courses, each contributing faculty member is responsible for a well-defined module of the course; in others, all faculty members are responsible for the entire course.  In the former case, each faculty member should receive fractional credit; in the later, faculty may deserve full credit (making the course very expensive).  

To:  	Paul Reichardt
	Provost

From: 	Tom Clausen
	Chair
	University wide Pre-tenure Review Committee

Subj:	Committee's comments about the review process

I thought you might like to know that the Pre-tenure Review committee was of the opinion that the overall process went smoothly.  Files were generally well prepared and there was a general consensus on our part on the strengths and weaknesses of each file.  We found no patterns that indicated a breakdown in the system.  

There were, however, some isolated problems that we hope can be addressed prior to next year's submission of files.  These are summarized below:  

*	Some faculty continue to confuse "good citizenship" with service.  For example, leading a Boy Scout troop, while commendable, would not normally be construed as service.  
*	The inclusion of student written evaluations (yellow sheets) in the files should be avoided since it is our understanding that these responses are to be used solely by the faculty member to enhance their teaching and not for evaluations for tenure or promotion.  We were particularly disturbed to observe that one Unit Peer committee had refereed to these responses to justify an unfavorable evaluation.  
*	Some of the documentation in one file was difficult to access because multiple pages were inserted into a single transparent sleeve.  In order to thoroughly view these items, they had to be disassembled.  
*	Several Unit Peer letters were very superficial and perfunctory and hence did a disservice to what we felt were strong files. 
*	In one instance, our committee found the Unit Peers' recommendation entirely inconsistent with the file.  It was clear that the Unit Peer committee was unhappy with the faculty member undergoing review but the foundations the Unit Peer committee used to bolster their argument were arbitrary and capricious.  

I would like to stress again that these problems were not pervasive and that the committee felt the process went smoothly overall.  The last two items in the above list were considered the most serious and the committee hopes that our letters will help the process.  

Date:    	February 2, 2005

TO:   		Dr. Paul Reichardt, Provost

FROM:  	Godwin A. Chukwu, Chair
		University-wide Promotion & Tenure Committee

SUBJECT:  	Committee's suggestions/comments on the review process

The university-wide Promotion and Tenure committee had a successful review of the candidates' files.  The committee's suggestions/comments for future reviews are made below as follows:  

1.	The committee felt that a 2.5% workload in teaching, research or service was "token" and strongly suggest that all low percentage UAF faculty Workloads should be reviewed and upgraded in favor of stronger, more realistic workload percentages that would not only enhance the bi- and tri-partite missions, but would also enhance the measurability of the performance within a given workload.  

2.	The committee suggests that a clarification of faculty "service expectation" be clearly stated in the unit criteria or similar documentation.  Is the "service expectation" from within UAF or should it include UAF AND professional discipline/organization, and the community?  

3.	The committee suggests clarification in the unit criteria or similar document on the following.  For promotion from Associate professor to Professor, it is currently stated that "candidates must demonstrate --- leadership in their discipline---".  This statement should be broadened to include "leadership in any of the following:  discipline, profession or service to the public.  

4.	The committee suggests that subsequent committee members should be made to understand during their first planning meeting that: 

	(a) retention issues should not be the concern of the committee in their review. 
	(b) initial hire issues should not be a concern of the committee in their review.  

ATTACHMENT 131/3
UAF Faculty Senate #131
September 19, 2005

MOTION:
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves that all Senate committees, including subcommittees and ad hoc committees, have mixed gender representation, and further, the Senate strongly recommends that all university-wide committees have mixed gender representation.

EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately

RATIONALE:  	Although women make up approximately 40% of the faculty, they are not always represented in University-wide committees.  To avoid the appearance of bias and to include more views, background and experience, the CSW believe that increasing mixed gender representation on committees will help to further integrate women into all levels of the university community.  This motion reaffirms that the university values gender equity.  

ATTACHMENT 131/4
UAF Faculty Senate #131
September 19, 2005

SAC minutes 8/30/85

8.  Occupational Certificates of Completion:  Faculty Alliance made a motion to keep the number at 16 rather than 9.  Faculty Senates will be discussing this proposal.  

ACTION:  Provosts track actions through faculty senates, and help ensure community campus needs and interests are clearly voiced.  

To:  	SAC 
	Faculty Alliance for Faculty Senates

From:  Dave Veazey

Subj:  Transcription of Certificates of Completion

Ref:  	Vice President’s Taskforce on Certificates of Completion, Final Report 	and Recommendations, of April 22 2005

The Taskforce report discussed at SAC and currently before the Faculty Senates for consideration, addressed the request of community campus directors to provide for official recognition and transcription of workforce training programs at the less than 30 credit hour level.  It called for establishment and transcription of two categories of certificate, “Occupational Certificate of Completion” (16 to 29 credits), and “Workforce Certificate of Completion” (3-15 credits), and associated modifications to Regents Policy P10.04.02 & 03, and University Regulation R10.04.02.

Subsequent deliberations with the Task Force, MAU staff and faculty, and community campus directors, indicate that the recommendations of the report should be modified as follows:

1.  Hold in abeyance the recommendation regarding “Workforce Certificate of Completion”.  These are non-credit programs, and we need to identify different ways to account and track for them.

2.  Reduce the minimum credit hour requirements for “Occupational Certificate of Completion” from 16 to 9 credit hours, with an ability for the President to make exceptions to the credit hour requirements upon the recommendation of the Chancellor.  16 credit hours was selected based on eligibility for federal financial aid, but many of these programs are provided to meet industrial needs and are funded by industry.  The intent is to optimize the benefit of these programs to employers and employees, while providing official recognition to the community campuses that offer them.  It is important to note that all such programs, just like all programs requiring approval of the Board of Regents, must be approved and forwarded by the appropriate Senate (and reviewed by the other Senates), so this in no way modifies or diminishes faculty control.

To accommodate these changes, and remain in compliance with accreditation standards, the proposed policy and regulation changes are as follows:

REGENTS POLICY

Degree and Certificate Program Approval	P10.04.02

All academic and certificate program additions, deletions, major revisions, and offerings of existing programs outside the State of Alaska will be approved by the Board of Regents.  The Board delegates approval authority of Occupational Certificates of Completion to the President.   This Policy has a corresponding University Regulation.
	(05-07-81, revised 02-16-96, revised XX-XX-05)

Credit Hour Requirements for Degree and Certificate Programs	P10.04.03

The minimum number of credits which may be required by a degree or certificate program approved by the Board of Regents will be, for each level:

Occupational Certificate of Completion	9 credits
Certificate	30 credits	Master's degree	30 credits
Associate degree	60 credits	Graduate Certificate	12 credits
Bachelor's degree	120 credits	Post-Baccalaureate Certificate	24 credits

With the exception of Post-Baccalaureate and Graduate Certificates, programs of less than 30 credits do not require Board of Regents approval.  The award for completion of such programs will be a "certificate of completion" that must be clearly distinguished from a certificate awarded by the Board of Regents. 

The maximum number of credits which may be required by a degree or certificate program approved by the Board of Regents is, for each level:
Occupational Certificate of Completion	29 credits
Certificate	60 credits	Master's degree	45 credits
Associate degree	75 credits	Graduate Certificate	29 credits
Bachelor's degree	132 credits	Post-Baccalaureate Certificate 	60 credits

The actual number of credits required for each degree and certificate, including prerequisites for required courses, will be specified in the current catalog of each university or community college.

The President may make exceptions to minimum or maximum credit hours for individual programs upon approval of the MAU faculty senate and on the recommendation of the appropriate Chancellor.

While no minimum or maximum credit hours are required for the doctorate, a student is expected to be affiliated with the university for at least two years and complete all requirements for the degree within ten years.

UNIVERSITY REGULATION
__________________________________________________________________

Degree and Certificate Program Approval	R10.04.02

 Full faculty senate approved program proposals will be submitted to SAC and distributed to MAUs adequately in advance of Regents meetings for review.  Following discussion and resolution of issues at SAC, recommendations and summary program approval forms will be submitted by SAC to the President or Board of Regents as appropriate.

All degree and certificate programs must be approved by the Board of Regents prior to their being offered. Institutions and programs may issue statements certifying that students have successfully completed a series of courses, but such certifications, to be called "certificates of completion," must be clearly distinguished from degree or certificate programs approved by the Board of Regents.

ATTACHMENT 131/5
UAF Faculty Senate #131
September 19, 2005

Faculty Affairs Committee
September 2, 2005

Present: Liz Brown, Mike Davis, Jon Genetti, Anupma Prakash, Chris Wolsko, Mingchu Zhang, Denis Wisenberg

Nominations for Chair:
Jon Genetti volunteered for chair.  No objections, so elected by acclamation.

Topics discussed:

We reviewed last year’s final report to give new members an idea of the issues we dealt with and remind all members of the open/unresolved topics.  Jon Genetti asked for volunteers to be point persons for each of the issues.

Emeritus Regulations:  Faculty Senate passed the motion during Meeting #126.  Expect this issue to be referred back to FA this year.  Mike Davis agreed to be point.

Electronic Faculty Workload Project:  FA saw a demo (mostly non-working) of the system last year.  Will schedule a new presentation/demo with Hild Peters this year to see that status of the system and provide feedback.  Anupma Prakash & Liz Brown agreed to be point.

Student evaluations in promotion and tenure decisions:  Will invite Jordon Titus to give a new presentation that includes her recent research.  Mike Davis & Liz Brown pointed out that rural classes have a very poor return rate (<10%) of SOIs, which makes using them very difficult.

Supervisory Training:  Suggested that summer (with funding) would be a good time to offer this training.  Also need to find a way to offer training by distance delivery.

Non-represented/research Faculty:  Need to determine exactly who and how many fall under this designation.

Administrative Items:

Blackboard account:  We will use a blackboard account this year as a common place to store minutes, agendas, draft documents and supporting documentation.  Jon Genetti will get one set up.

Meeting times and dates for Fall semester:
Mondays from 11-12 on 9/26, 10/24, and 12/5

ATTACHMENT 131/6
UAF Faculty Senate #131
September 19, 2005

Committee on the Status of Women
12 September 2005
Monday 3:00-4:30 PM 

Present: Carol Gold, Sine Anahita, Jane Webber, Qwentyn Richards, Earlina Bowden, Renate Wackerbauer, Cindy Hardy, Wendy Zhou, & Denise Thorsen. 

1) Faculty Luncheon
-Deli sandwich, 5 minute Chancellor talk, Joy Morrison few minutes, Sine Anahita will provide broad survey results, which someone else will present, then dessert (ice cream sundaes)
-Planned seating to encourage mixing, 50 people coming so far, remind other female faculty to attend

2) Chancellor's Diversity Committee -- we need a representative from our committee on this committee.  Cindy Hardy volunteered to be our representative for this committee. She will report to us about their workings.

3) Senate Faculty Committee on Research -- What is their mandate?  Requirements of this committee? They wanted someone from our committee. Denise is a possible volunteer to serve on this committee. Jane will find out more about this committee. 

4) Faculty senate term lengths, make them 3-year terms. Positive (less turnover, more continuity) and negative (hard to get people to volunteer) points discussed. 

5) Carol reported on the mixed-gender committees -- equal representation on committees, motion made. No quotas and no enforcement. It was passed onto the next Senate meeting. It will be voted on one week from today (9/19/2005), at the 1PM meeting. Please try and show up to represent your interest. For example, we need a guy for our committee. It was suggested that we have two reps from the Senate instead of one, so we ensure we have a male in our committee. If you cannot come convey your thoughts to your rep.

6) Emeritus status for Charlie Basham. We will deal with this in spring since she is out of the country. 

7) Survey Results -- Sine Anahita will make a presentation on the survey results at our next committee meeting. All the data is crunch but just need to write the report. First a presentation to this committee and then to the Senate. 

8) Next meeting will be Monday Sept. 26 2005, two weeks from today at 3PM. 

9) Maternity Leave -- It is cobbled together sick leave and vacation leave. There is no maternity leave. 

10) Child Care. Denise travels much for conferences during the summer. She went to an Engineering Education conference and needed child care at the last minute. The conference organizers did not provide childcare. Carol mentioned that childcare is not found at many conferences because of liability. 

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

Committee on the Status of Women
September 2, 2005

Present:  Sine Anahita, Carol Gold, Renate Wackerbauer, Jane Weber, Wendy Zhou

1)  Women Faculty Luncheon on September 22, 2005 - Carol, Jane, and Sheri will take care of the details

2)  Discussion Items:

1)	The Chancellor’s Diversity Action Committee needs a representative from our committee.
      
2)	Is anyone interested in being on the Senate Faculty Research Committee?
      
3)	Loss of women in (upper level) management positions

4)	How does our committee feel about 3 year terms for the Senate?  For this committee?
      
5)	Emeritus Status for Charley Basham

6)	“Damronization” at UAF

7)	 Sine is working on the final report of the Study of Faculty Worklife Survey.

3)  We will submit a motion to the Faculty Senate Admin Committee on 9/9/05 for the Senate meeting on 9/1905, moving that all Senate committees have mixed gender representation, and that the Senate recommends that all university-wide committees have mixed gender representation. 

4)  Carol and Jane were elected co-chairs for 2005-06.

5)  Our meeting day/time for the semester will be Mondays at 3:00.

6)  Next meeting is Monday, September 12 at 3:00. 

ATTACHMENT 131/7
UAF Faculty Senate #131
September 19, 2005

Developmental Studies Committee
September 8, 2005

Present: Nancy Ayagarak, John Creed, Linda Hapsmith, Cindy Hardy, Marjorie Illingworth, Ron Illingworth, Bernice Joseph, Wanda Martin, Greg Owens, Elena Schlotfeldt, Betsy Taguchi, Debbie Toopootelook, Victor Zinger. 

Nominations for Chair: 
Cindy Hardy, Joe Mason volunteered for co-chair. No objections, so elected by acclamation.

The committee met and discussed the agenda for the year.  Topics included:

Role of the committee in the Faculty Senate committee structure: 
We identify policy concerns that apply to developmental students and courses cross-campus, and we act as curricular review committee for all developmental courses.  

We discussed the possibility of or need for this committee re-forming to take on the role of curricular review for AAS and certificate programs as well as developmental courses in the areas where those programs and courses overlap and are distinct from the BA/BS degrees.   Ron, Cindy, and Joe will review the need for this action and report back to the committee on whether this is an avenue the committee should pursue.

We touched on the need to further develop and promote the Learning Center model at UAF to include not only Developmental Education, SSSP, and Advising, but also academic probation intervention and other student support.  Ron will bring more information on possible models to the next meeting.

Role of the committee vis-à-vis the Department of Developmental Education:
 The committee consists of representation from a broad range of areas involved in developmental issues within the University all of whom work to prepare students to be successful at UAF.  The committee serves as a means to address student success issues that arise from any and all of these areas and coordinate our efforts for students.  In this, the committee can coordinate the efforts of the developmental Education Department and other student service programs to develop new policy through Faculty Senate policy and procedures.   The committee can also support the Developmental Education though advocacy of related policy in the Faculty Senate.

Response to the idea of selective admissions at UAF:
One major role for the committee is in the selective admissions discussion starting on-campus.  We will gather ideas and develop a response to the Enrollment Management committee's statement on selective admissions when that is finalized.

Ron also suggested that the members of the DEVS committee who have attended training at the Kellogg Institute draw on the materials from that institute to develop a statement to the Chancellor and President in support of developmental programs on the UAF campuses.  They will bring this statement to the committee for our review and support so that we can forward it to the Senate.

Meeting times and dates for the Fall Semester.
Fridays 2:15pm to 3:30pm.  September 30
			         October 14
			         November 11
			         December 9

ATTACHMENT 131/8
UAF Faculty Senate #131
September 19, 2005

Faculty Development, Assessment, & Improvement Meeting Minutes
9/1/05

The first meeting of the 2005-2006 academic year was called to order by Lee Haugen at 11:02 a.m. 

In attendance were Joy Morrison, Corky Corkern, Margorie Illingworth, Lee Haugen, Susan Henrichs, Channon Price, Christine Cooper, John Kawula, and Larry Roberts. Absent was Susan Herman.

As the first order of business, new officers for the year were elected. Lee Haugen and Larry Roberts were elected by acclamation for a second term to the respective positions of Chairperson and Recording Secretary.

The dates and times for fall FDAI committee meetings were set for the first Thursdays of each month at 11:00-12:00 noon. Specifically, the next three meetings are October 6, November 3, and December 1. The spring semester meetings times and dates will be set following the announcement of spring teaching assignments.

Meeting Agenda (with respective discussion and action)

I. Requests for volunteers for various administrative committees.

Lee reported that there are vacancies in the Faculty Research Oversight committee, Diversity Committee, Technology Advisory Board, and the Master Planning committee. Interested faculty members are encouraged to contact Paul Layer.

II. Supervisor Training for Faculty

Discussion ensued addressing a request from the Provost for the FDAI to consider the possibility or need to have training for faculty that supervise staff. A summary of those discussions was prepared by Susan Henrichs and as follows:

There are already at least two efforts underway to provide some training for faculty as supervisors:

(1) The Graduate school has written a Graduate Advisor Manual for faculty, which includes information on supervising RAs and TAs, and also includes general information supervisors need, like UAF and UA policies on discrimination. After it is reviewed by some experienced faculty, the Graduate School will distribute hardcopies to new faculty and electronic copies to everyone via their website and e-mail. The Graduate School also plans to sponsor a workshop each year on graduate student supervision/advising for new faculty (and others who want to attend.)

(2) Joy Morrison is working with Beth Behner at Statewide on a training program for Department Chairs, emphasizing labor relations issues.

In the FDAI committee discussions, we identified one group the above training efforts don’t reach, which is faculty who supervise staff. In most cases, these are faculty with grants, who hire research assistants and sometimes administrative assistants.

We also identified two different, broad areas of training that can (and probably should) be given to faculty supervisors. First, there is training that relates to rules, regulations, and university policies. Examples would be rules on equal opportunity, sexual harassment, overtime for non-exempt employees, etc. This list would include Earlina Bowden for discrimination issues, Beth Behner for labor relations issues, etc. The FDAI committee thinks that organizing and requiring this training is the responsibility of administration.

Second, there is some area that is appropriate for faculty development (including department chairs), which could be called “Developing Supervisory Skills”. These could include workshops on topics like conflict resolution, how to do constructive evaluations, how to help employees manage their time, etc.

The FDAI committee recommends that administration undertake the first group of training tasks. The FDAI committee is willing to look into the second type of training (e.g., interest among faculty, costs and guidance on whether this is the task the Provost had in mind when we were asked to look into this issue.

III. Grade Inflation Study Survey

Susan Henrich reported on the findings of a recent grade inflation study. It was explained that per GPAs there is a trend of higher grades reporting country wide. And, per UAF as an institution, it lies “squarely in the national trend” statistically speaking with the conclusion that UAF does not vary significantly from other institutions in the country.  The report also indicated some differences in grade reporting between the main UAF campus and that of TVC. After some thoughtful discussion as to specific differences can possible explanations, Susan suggested first giving these report findings to Senate President Paul Layer for distribution to “appropriate faculty groups” followed by a later, general distribution.

IV. Assessment of Faculty Development Program

Joy Morrison reported that the Provost had suggested that it was time to have the Office of Faculty Development evaluated. In response, Joy arranged to have a visiting consultant from North Caroline State University perform the evaluation while onsite recently when she delivered Service Learning training faculty. The evaluation results have yet to be announced.

V. Excellence in Teaching and Faculty Development Conference

Larry Roberts asked that this item continue on the regular FDAI committee agenda as ongoing business from last academic year. A review and update of this business will be presented at the October committee meeting.

The meeting adjourned at 11:55  a..m..

Submitted by Larry Roberts, Recording Secretary

ATTACHMENT 131/9
UAF Faculty Senate #131
September 19, 2005

Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee
September 7, 2005

Present:  Cathy Cahill, Patty Gray, David Maxwell, Paul McCarthy, Joan Parker-Webster, Heinz Wiechen, Richard Wies, Susan Henrichs, Pauline Wilson and Laura Bender

1)  Cathy Cahill was elected as chair of the committee for the 2005-2006 academic year.

2)  Wednesday at 2:15 PM was selected as the preferred meeting time.

3)  Discussion Items: 

	a)  Issues raised last year:
i)  Update of course forms – it appears that someone else is updating/streamlining the course forms so we don’t need to address the issue of the forms this year.  Check with Sheri on who is doing this.
ii)  Evaluation of new/trial courses – consensus is we don’t need to evaluate the course beyond the evaluation we already do.  However, Dean Henrichs thinks we should go back and look at the syllabi of stacked courses after they have been taught to make sure that they are clearly differentiating the requirements for the graduate and undergraduate students.  This is especially important for graduate programs that rely heavily on stacked courses.  We can do this by getting the syllabi from the departments.  This issue will be discussed further at future meetings.
iii)  Realistic classroom usage – check with Tim Stickel about what he wants from us on this issue.
iv)  Minor vs. major changes – the committee wants to clarify what are minor and major changes and streamline the paperwork for them.  We will address this issue in further meetings.
v)  Thesis writing assistance – Dean Henrichs informed us that the Graduate School has hired Carrie Aldrich to assist students with improving their thesis writing skills.  The Graduate School will also generate a list of students willing to help other students with editing their theses.
vi)  Resignation from committees – Dean Henrichs is working on a changed ‘change of committee’ form that will require signatures from the committee members resigning from the committee.  The Dean will not allow a committee member to resign from a committee in order to avoid failing a student.

	b)  New issues:
i)  Laura Bender stated that there are some catalog changes that need to be made this year.  The committee will address these changes at a future meeting.
ii)  Dean Henrichs has performed a comparison of the graduate stipends given at UAF with those given to students at 31 comparable institutions.  The initial results show that our students receive 64-77% of the ‘average’ stipend given by the other schools.  This is exceedingly low.  The Dean knows that the Fund 1 TA stipends will be harder to raise than the RA stipends so she intends to work with the research institutes to try to raise the RA stipends.  Once the RA stipends start to increase, she will work on raising the TA stipends.
iii)  Bob Bolton, one of the graduate student representatives on GAAC, will need to be replaced on the committee in Spring 2006.

4)  The next meeting of GAAC will be September 28th at 2:15 in the Runcorn conference room in the Natural Sciences Facility.  The meeting will address trial course requests.