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

For Audioconferencing:  
Toll-free #:  1-800-893-8850    
Participant PIN#:  1109306
Chair PIN#:  1109371

A G E N D A
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #138
Monday, September 18, 2006
1:00 p.m. - 3:10 p.m.
Wood Center Conference Room C/D

1:00	I	Call to Order – Shirish Patil    				  5 Min.
		A.	Roll Call
		B.	Approval of Minutes to Meeting #137
		C.	Adoption of Agenda

1:05	II	Status of Chancellor's Office Actions 			  5 Min.
	A.	Motions Approved:
1.	Motion to ratify the recommendation of the GCC to delete the standing committees. 
2.	Motion to amend the Mandatory Placement Policy.
3.	Motion to amend the grading policy and GPA computation to include +/-'s.
4.	Motion to approve a Minor in Global Studies.
5.	Motion to approve a Bachelor of Emergency Management.
6.	Motion to approve the Unit Criteria for the College of Engineering and Mines (CEM).
7.	Motion to approve a Certificate in Automotive Technology.
8.	Motion to approve an A.A.S. in Construction Management.
9.	Motion to approve a New Occupational Endorsements Request (Format 3A).
	B.	Motions Pending:  none

1:10 	III	Public Comments/Questions   				  5 Min.

1:15	IV	A.	President's Comments - Shirish Patil    		10 Min. 
		B.	President-elect's Report - Jon Genetti  		  5 Min.

1:30	V	A.	Remarks by Chancellor Steve Jones   		10 Min.
		B.	Remarks by Provost P. Reichardt  			20 Min.
			1.	Summary Report of 2005/2006 Faculty Reviews
				(Attachment 138/1)
			2.	Accreditation Report & site visit 

2:00	VI	Governance Reports    					  5 Min. 
	A.	Staff Council - Jeff Stepp 
	B.	ASUAF -Sven Gilkey 

2:05  	BREAK  

2:10	VII	Guest Speaker 						10 Min.
		A.	Buck Sharpton, Vice Chancellor for Research 

2:20	VIII	New Business  						25 Min.
A.	Motion to amend Section 3, (Article V, Committees, Standing) of the Bylaws by deleting E.4., the Faculty Research Oversight Committee, submitted by the Administrative Committee.  (Attachment 138/2) 
B.	Motion to add STAT 200 as a Mathematics Literacy component of the Core Curriculum, submitted by the Core Review Committee (Attachment 138/3)
C.	Motion to modify the "Guidelines for the Evaluation Process for Administrators (Group A) to add the Dean of Libraries and the Vice Chancellor for Research, submitted by the Faculty Appeals & Oversight Committee (Attachment 138/4)
D.	Motion to suspend the Group B Administrators reviews for 2006-2007, submitted by the Administrative Committee (Attachment 138/5)
E.	Motion to modify the UAF document "Policies and Regulations for the Appointment and Evaluation of Faculty" Chapter IV, D, 1, b (3) to add "unsatisfactory" to the categories for ranking or evaluating faculty, submitted by the Unit Criteria Committee (Attachment 138/6)

2:45	IX	Committee Reports     					15 Min.
	A.	Curricular Affairs - Marsha Sousa (Handout)
	B.	Faculty Affairs - Sukumar Bandopadhyay
	C.	Unit Criteria - Debasmita Misra (Attachment 138/7)
	D.	Committee on the Status of Women - Jane Weber (Attachment 138/8)
	E.	Core Review - Michael Harris (Attachment 138/9)
	F.	Curriculum Review - Rainer Newberry
	G.	Developmental Studies - Cindy Hardy (Handout)
	H.	Faculty Appeals & Oversight - Norm Swazo (Attachment 138/10)
	I.	Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement - Larry Roberts (Handout)
	J.	Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee - Cathy Cahill (Handout)

3:00	X	Members' Comments/Questions				10 Min.

3:10	XI	Adjournment

ATTACHMENT 138/1
UAF Faculty Senate #138
September 18, 2006

SUMMARY REPORT OF 2005-2006 FACULTY REVIEWS

Paul Reichardt

Mandatory Tenure
9 files:		9 yes at all stages of review

Early Tenure
15 files (9 promotion and tenure):	
		12 yes		9 yes at all stages of review
				2 yes at all stages except dean
				1 at all stages except unit peer and dean
		   3 withdrawn
				(Of the 12 successful applicants, four applied one year 
			early and eight applied two years early.  Two of the twelve
				were Associate Professors.)

Promotion (other than promotion to Associate Professor linked to tenure)
17 files
		10 yes		7 yes at all stages of review
				1 yes at all stages except provost
				2 yes at all stages other than unit peer
		5 no		2 no at all stages of review
				2 no at all stages except campus peer
				1 no at only provost and chancellor stages
		2 withdrawn

4th Year Comprehensive Review
24 files		
		23 satisfactory at all stages
		  1 unsatisfactory at all stages (except unit peer, which conducted no review)*
		* no substantive file was submitted

Post-Tenure Review
55 files
		52 satisfactory at all stages**
		  1 satisfactory at all stages except campus peer**
		  2 unsatisfactory at all stages
		  **  Although 53 files described performances deemed to be satisfactory, 
		suggestions for improved performance were made to a number of 
		faculty undergoing post-tenure review.

Observations

1.	Candidates and deans need to do a more thorough job of examining files for completeness before they are sent to unit peer committees.  In 2005-2006 there were:  one promotion file missing post-tenure review evaluations that had direct bearing on the case, several 4th Year files that were missing IAS reports and/or unit criteria, and 20 (out of 55) Post-Tenure Review files missing copies of the "Dean's 3rd Year Review" and/or IAS reports.  While it seems reasonable to expect a faculty member undergoing review in any of these processes to include all the relevant materials in his/her file, the most efficient way to ensure that the file is complete is for the dean to verify that key documents are in it.
2.	All reviewers must pay attention to unit criteria.  We had a couple cases in 2005-2006 in which the candidates did not address numerous explicit sections of the relevant unit criteria, and omissions were apparently not noticed through several levels of review.  More common are cases in which judgments are made about a faculty member's performance without explicit reference to any element of the unit criteria.  However, the most common problem is failure of a candidate to provide much evidence beyond IAS reports for quality of teaching and for the omission to be ignored during the review and evaluation process.  For example, I don't believe we should accept a one-time peer observation of a faculty member's classroom teaching and documentation of the visit with a perfunctory memo to meet the criteria of "peer/department chair classroom observation(s)."  The observation and critique should be thorough and truly evaluative, not just an exercise of going through the motions.  
3.	Most promotion/tenure files contain letters only from individuals suggested by the candidate or from individuals who have been selected by a process unknown to review committees.  At the very least, the dean should include in his/her comments a statement about the relationships between the candidate and the individuals providing letters.  Ideally there should be at least one letter from an individual who was not on the list of people suggested by the candidate.
4.	In cases of "unusual appointments" (e.g., President's Professors, holders of endowed chairs) the file should include a description of expectations and copies of workload agreements.
5.	The significance of awards and other forms of recognition should be explained by the candidate or the dean.  For example, reviewers of files may need assistance in understanding the significance of the CLA Teaching Excellence Award or the UAF Faculty Advisor Award.  
6.	Comments on the significance of publications, exhibits, performances, and other creative/scholarly work, particularly by unit level peers, are especially useful.
7.	The names of all members of each unit peer committee should be included in each unit peer committee report.
8.	In general, committee reports should contain more analysis and rationale but less repetition of factual material provided by the candidate.
9.	I continue to hear various comments ascribed to faculty who are skeptical that peer reviews carry much weight in the review process.  I believe that the summary of actions indicates that the faculty voice carries considerable weight.  Perhaps we should distribute the annual Provost's report on the P/T process more widely.

ATTACHMENT 138/2
UAF Faculty Senate #138
September 18, 2006
SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE

MOTION:======The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend Section 3, (Article V, Committees, Standing) of the Bylaws by deleting E. 4., the Faculty Research Oversight Committee. 
[[  ]]  =  DeletionCAPS = Addition
Sect. 3  	(ART V:  Committees)
E.	The standing and permanent committees of the Senate are:  

	STANDING

	[[4.	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:  	University Regulation (R10.07.02) promulgated by President Hamilton on February 3, 2005, states that an MAU which intends to engage in classified or proprietary research shall have a standing advisory committee, and that the chancellor will appoint up to three tenured faculty members to the committee.   Chancellor Jones has appointed a committee for UAF that follows the requirements specified in University Regulations.  Therefore, it is no longer necessary to have a Faculty Senate committee to serve in an oversight capacity.  

ATTACHMENT 138/3
UAF Faculty Senate #138
September 18, 2006
SUBMITTED BY CORE REVIEW

MOTION: 
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to accept STAT 200 as a Mathematics Literacy component of the Core Curriculum and that it be included in the list of courses that will satisfy the Core Math requirement.   

	EFFECTIVE:  	Spring 2007

RATIONALE:   	The CORE Review Committee has received and unanimously passed a request from the Department of Mathematics to make STAT 200 (Statistics) available to students as a CORE course.

The Philosophy of the CORE Curriculum states: 

Advanced literacy in mathematics implies a solid grasp of quantitative reasoning and appreciation of mathematical applications. Most important is acquiring the knowledge necessary for informed judgments on the uses of mathematical and statistical interpretations confronting us in everyday life

We observe that statistical interpretations have become the stuff of daily news, especially in political matters significant to citizenry.  STAT200 will be a welcome addition to the CORE Curriculum as we prepare students for the 21st century.

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

[[  ]]  = 	Deletions
CAPS = 	Additions

Baccalaureate Core

Courses used to meet a science or mathematics core requirements may also be used to satisfy the major and/or minor degree requirements.  Other core courses may not be used to meet any other requirements for a degree. 

Requirements       							Credits

Mathematics (3 credits) ……………………....………..………….	3
Complete one of the following:
MATH 103X - Concepts and Contemporary Applications  of Mathematics (3)
MATH 107X - Functions of Calculus* (4)
MATH 161X - Algebra for Business and Economics (3)
OR STAT 200 - ELEMENTARY PROBABILITY AND STATISTICS (3)

* No credit may be earned for more than one of MATH 107X or MATH 161X.

OR complete one of the following:*
MATH 200X, 201X, 202X, 262X, 272X 

*Or any math course having one of these as a prerequisite

ATTACHMENT 138/4
UAF Faculty Senate #138
September 18, 2006
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY APPEALS & OVERSIGHT

MOTION: 
=======

The Faculty Senate moves to modify "Guidelines for the Evaluation Process for Administrators" (Senate Meeting #99, February 5, 2001; amended Senate Meeting #111, October 28, 2002) to include (1) the Dean of Libraries and (2) the Vice Chancellor for Research in the "Group A" list of administrators.

	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately

RATIONALE:  	The Vice Chancellor for Research supervises research faculty via various institute directors, while the Dean of Libraries supervises library faculty.  Both positions make budgeting decisions affecting faculty and staff at UAF.  These responsibilities are consistent with those of the "Group A" list of administrators.  They are therefore hereby added to that list for administrator review.

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

Group A Administrators

Provost
Executive Dean, College of Rural and Community Development
Dean, School of Natural Resources and Agricultural Sciences
Dean, School of Fisheries & Ocean Sciences
Dean, Graduate School 
Dean, College of Engineering & Mines
Dean, School of Management
Dean, School of Education
Dean, College of Liberal Arts
Dean, College of Natural Sciences & Mathematics
Dean of Libraries
Vice Chancellor for Research

ATTACHMENT 138/5
UAF Faculty Senate #138
September 18, 2006
SUBMITTED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE

MOTION:  
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to suspend the "Group B" Administrative reviews scheduled for 2006-2007, pending discussion by the Provost Council of recommended changes in the review process.

EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately

RATIONALE:  	The Faculty Appeals & Oversight Committee (FAOC) recently forwarded a motion to the Administrative Committee for review and which was referred to the FAOC for further discussion.  The substance of the motion requires further discussion between the UAF administration and the FAOC so as to arrive at a mutually satisfactory process for evaluation of Group B administrators.  The Administrative Committee recommends the Provost and the FAOC work together to arrive at a reasonable process before action by the Senate is taken on a revision to the current policy.

ATTACHMENT 138/6
UAF Faculty Senate #138
September 18, 2006
SUBMITTED BY UNIT CRITERIA

MOTION:  
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to modify the University of Alaska Fairbanks' document, "Policies and Regulations for the Appointment and Evaluation of Faculty" Chapter IV, D, 1,b, (3), as follows:
 
 (3)	Professor.  Those faculty awarded the rank of professor at the university shall exemplify the attainment of performance and achievement consistent with a high standard of excellence.  

The faculty member shall present a record of continuing sustained excellence which demonstrates that the candidate is recognized for contributions to knowledge in the discipline; is recognized by peers and students as an excellent teacher; contributes to the overall effort and reputation of the university through appropriate extension of knowledge and discipline-related service, within the context of the faculty member's proportionate responsibilities as identified in his/her annual workload distribution agreement.  A promotion/tenure peer review committee (unit or university-wide) shall recommend promotion to the rank of professor only if a majority of the committee rates the faculty member's tripartite (or bipartite) areas of activity as "very good" or "excellent" (ratings, in order of improved performance, being "UNSATISFACTORY" "satisfactory," "good," "very good," and "excellent").  

EFFECTIVE:  	Immediate, Upon Chancellor Approval

RATIONALE:  	There is some limitation in the categories for ranking or evaluating candidates in annual review and review for promotion and tenure in Board of Regent's policy and university regulation. Current policy provides for four levels: "satisfactory," "good," "very good," and "excellent".  In the view of the Unit Criteria Committee of the Faculty Senate, these categories do the University and individual faculty members a disservice because under the current system, the lowest rank is Satisfactory. The current scheme does not provide a formal mechanism for indicating that a candidate's performance in any area is unsatisfactory.  It has been suggested that the level "unsatisfactory" should be added.

ATTACHMENT 138/7
UAF Faculty Senate #138
September 18, 2006
SUBMITTED BY UNIT CRITERIA

Minutes for 6 Sept 2006 
Unit Criteria Committee
Chancellor’s Conference Room, Signer’s Hall
Time: 9:00 – 10:00 am

Present:  Peter Bierman (via teleconference), Lee Taylor, Thomas Zhou, Debasmita Misra, Brenda Konar

1.	Elect committee chair and co-chair:
Debasmita Misra was unanimously elected chair and Brenda Konar as co-chair
2.	Future meetings were scheduled for the fall semester
Oct 23: 900-1015 
Nov 22: 900-1015
3.	Unfinished business:
The committee discussed the addition of the verbiage "needs improvement" to the Evaluation of Faculty for Promotion to Professor (D. 1. b. 3. of blue book). This was discussed and approved at a previous Unit Criteria committee. We all agreed that this addition is still worthwhile. Brenda Konar moved that the verbiage "needs improvement" should be added to the evaluation for professors. Lee Taylor seconded the motion. It was unanimously passed. 
4.	New business:
The committee has received the unit criteria for the Department of Computer Science and Tips for Reviewing Unit Criteria via email today. These will be discussed at the Oct 23 meeting. 
Debasmita Misra will look into units whose criteria are past their review date and also units who have no criteria. We should try to target these groups to submit unit criteria this year. 
5. 	Meeting Adjourned

ATTACHMENT 138/8
UAF Faculty Senate #138
September 18, 2006
SUBMITTED BYCOMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN

Minutes of Committee on the Status of Women
August 24, 2006

Present:  Sine Anahita, Cindy Hardy, Alex Fitts, David Koester, Cecile Lardon, Brenda Norcross, Kayt Sunwood, Renate Wackerbauer, Jane Weber, Wendy Zhou

Details are being finalized for the 2nd Annual Women Faculty Luncheon to be held September 19, 2006.

Items to work on for 2006-07:  

Faculty Work Life Study
o	Continue analysis of data
o	Expand presentation of findings
o	Write supplemental report on salary issues
o	Discuss potential recommendations and work towards implementation

Tenure and Promotion Workshop (2nd annual)

Strengthen liaison relationships with:
o	Women’s Center
o	Women staff, e.g. work with Staff Council to form parallel committee on the status of women staff members, and/or offer assistance to Staff Council to help them develop a study similar to ours
o	UAA, UAS women faculty

Liaison with appropriate groups and individuals as issues pertaining to women faculty arise at UAF

Help incubate women’s groups, e.g. Women’s Caucus – brown bag discussion group

Create and maintain a current list of women faculty at UAF

Gather and analyze historical data information with gender on time to tenure and promotions, rank, and salary information for faculty at UAF for at least the last ten years

Compare gender and salary for term-funded and adjunct faculty

Continue to network on mentoring new and mid-career women faculty.

Next meeting:  Thursday, September 28, 1-2.

ATTACHMENT 138/9
UAF Faculty Senate #138
September 18, 2006
SUBMITTED BY CORE REVIEW

Core Curriculum Committee Report

Report provided by Michael Harris on behalf of the Core Curriculum Committee.

The Core Curriculum Committee did not meet over the summer.  Signing authority for Core business was held by Jin Brown, Dept. of Communications, and Michael Harris, Dept. of Biology and Wildlife.  A small number of petitions were received over this period and acted on as per existing rules and precedents.  

A series of petitions were received following the final meeting of the Spring 2006 term, regarding an INDS student.  The complexity of issues surrounding this student were such that these petitions were tabled pending the first Core Curriculum Committee meeting in the Fall term 2006.

The Core Curriculum Committee met August 24, 2006.  Four petitions were discussed and acted on as per existing rules and precedents.

Latrice Bowman (Math) and Michael Harris (Biology & Wildlife) were appointed as Co-Chairs of this committee.

The motion to add STAT 200 as a Mathematics Literacy component of the Core Curriculum was finalized and submitted to the faculty Senate.
 
The next meeting of the Core Curriculum Committee is set for September 25, 2006.

ATTACHMENT 138/10
UAF Faculty Senate #138
September 18, 2006
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY APPEALS & OVERSIGHT 

Faculty Appeals & Oversight Committee Report
Submitted by N.K. Swazo, Chair

The FAOC met on Wednesday September 06.  Norm Swazo was elected committee chair.  The committee reviewed two draft motions proposing revision of the process for evaluation of administrators.  Both motions were reviewed, revisions proposed to the motion concerned with the "Group B" list of administrators, and both motions submitted for review by the Senate Administrative Committee at its meeting on September 08.

The motion concerning addition of the Vice Chancellor for Research and the Dean of Libraries to the list of Group A administrators was transmitted by the Administrative Committee to the full senate for review and disposition.  The motion concerned with the Group B list was referred to the FAOC for further discussion with the Provost.  The Committee will meet in late September or early October to engage this issue so as to arrive at a mutually satisfactory revision of process.  In the meantime, the Administrative Committee is forwarding a motion to suspend Group B administrator evaluations scheduled for the 2006-2007 academic year.

The Committee has one student grade appeal committee being scheduled for hearing and decision sometime late September or early October.

No other business was concluded or is pending.