MINUTES
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #109
MONDAY, MAY 6, 2002
WOOD CENTER CAROL BROWN BALLROOM

I	The meeting was called to order by President Swazo at 1:35 p.m.

	A.	ROLL CALL 
	
	Members Present:		Members Absent:
	Barnhardt, C.			Bond, S.
	Bruder, J.    			Bristow, W.
	Bueler, E.     			Eicken, H.
	Bult, A.				Kramer, D.
	Chukwu, G.  			Lin, C.
	Curda, L.      			Lincoln, T.
	Davis, M.     			McBeath, J.
	Gladden, J.   			Metz, P.
	Hannigan, M. 			Schatz, M. 
	Holton, G.      			Whiteledge, T.
	Illingworth, R. 			
	Leguard, J.  			
	Mason, J.     			OTHERS PRESENT:
	McLean-Nelson, D.   		Abrams, C.
	McRoy, P.				Blake, J.
	Murray, M.				Castellini, M
	Pinney, P.				Charles, G.
	Roth, M.				Dorman, C. 
	Swazo, N. 				Douglas, J. 
	Weber, J.				Duffy, L. 
	Zilberkant, E.			Getz, M. 
						Gold, C. 
						Gregory, G.
						Grimes, M. 
						Layral, S.
						Lind, M.
						Martin, W. 
						Peters, H.
						Phipps, B.  
						Pinkel, C. 
						Smith, R.

	NON-VOTING MEMBERS PRESENT:	NON-VOTING MEMBERS ABSENT:
	Miller, D. - President, ASUAF   	Graduate Student, GSO
	Leipzig, J. - Dean, CLA			Collins, J.  - Dean, SOM
	Tremarello, A - Registrar 		McCrea, S.  - President, UAFSC

	B.	The minutes to Meeting #108 (April 8, 2002) were approved as distributed via e-mail.  

	C.	The agenda was approved as distributed via e-mail with the addition of two agenda items under Unfinished Business--VII. L. Motion on Classified Research, submitted by Norm Swazo and VII. M. Motion on Pre-Major Status, submitted by Curricular Affairs.  

II	Status of Chancellor's Office Actions
	A.	Motions approved: 
		1.	Motion to amend the Certificate Program 
			requirements.
		2.	Motion to amend the Master's Degree residency 
			Requirement.
		3.	Motion to amend the New Program Request Form 
			to require the completion of a Resource Commitment 
			Form.
		4.	Motion to amend the New Course Request and the 
			Change Course Request forms to include a question 
			on the impact of proposed action.
		5.	Motion to amend the Mathematics Literacy 
			component of the Core Curriculum to include 
			MATH 161.
		6.	Motion to endorse the Core Review Committee's 
			recommendation for a university's Writing-Across- 
			the Curriculum Program and curriculum specialist.
	B.	Motions pending:  
		1.	Motion to approve the M.A. degree program 
			in Applied Linguistics.

III	Announcements & Presentations       

	A.	Announcement of Usibelli Awards 

Chancellor Lind spoke on the Usibelli award winners.  These faculty members represent the highest achievement in teaching, research, and service.  Becky Phipps, the public relations director for Usibelli Coal Mine joined Chancellor Lind in making the presentations.  The award for teaching went to Marty Getz, instructor of Mathematics; the research award was given to Larry Duffy, professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry; and the service award went to Jim Douglas, 4-H agent with the UAF Cooperative Extension Service.  All the nominees were given a round of applause.  Chancellor Lind thanked the Usibelli's for their contribution and continued support of the university.  It provides an opportunity to recognize the outstanding work that is done by our faculty.  Becky Phipps indicated that it is pleasure to come and see the recipients.  The awards are in their tenth year and named for Emil Usibelli, who had a dedication to education.  Rewarding the faculty for their excellence is an honor.  

	B.	Announcement of Emeriti Faculty Awards 

Chancellor Lind indicated that this is a special week for UAF with all of the activities surrounding commencement.  It's a time for us to recognize the emeriti faculty as well.  The list of emeriti faculty is included in the agenda.  A round of applause was given for all the emeriti.  

	C.	Resolution of Recognition for the Rifle team

Norm Swazo asked the Senate to concur with the following Resolution of Recognition for the rifle team.  The Senate concurred and  responded with a round of applause.  The resolution was presented to Cassie Pinkel, a student representative of the rifle team. 

				RESOLUTION OF RECOGNITION

WHEREAS, The UAF rifle team won its fourth consecutive NCAA title in 
	March as well as an individual NCAA title and record-setting score 
	in small bore by junior Matt Emmons, who finished fifth at the 
	World Cup for shooting in Sydney, Australia, and 

WHEREAS, Freshman Joe Hein won the men's 3x40 smallbore rifle event 
	at the 2002 U.S. Junior Olympic Championships, earning him a 
	place on the USA Shooting National Development Team, and 

WHEREAS, The Nanooks boast ten National Rifle Association All-
	Americans based on the shooters' scores throughout the season 
	with an emphasis on the NCAA sectionals and their grade point 
	averages, now

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the UAF Faculty Senate 
	congratulates the 2001-2002 Rifle Team as NCAA champion and 
	commends the teams superior performance.

IV	Comments from Chancellor, Marshall Lind - 

Chancellor Lind spoke about the commencement ceremony that will take place this weekend.  Honorary degrees will be given to four recipients including Corey Flintoff, John Burns, David Salmon, Jaroslav Nesetrill.  Commencement activities will take place in our other communities at other dates.  

Chancellor Lind indicated they are in the final stages for the IAB Director.  The Athletics Director is in the final stages.  They have completed phone interviews and hope to have finalists on campus within the next week.  They are in the screening stage for the Dean of Enrollment Management.  The Registrar's recruitment is underway.  And, the Deanship of SALRM should be finalized within the next week.

Chancellor Lind spoke with representatives in Juneau to find out the latest in terms of the budget.  It is still to early to tell.  There are indicators that something might happen to the general bond issues.  They include the bioscience building, the West Ridge Research Building, and Lena Point.  Another bond issue speaks to the deferred maintenance needs, especially in the rural locations.  It might also include some money for helping TVC in the event of a relocation.  It is a good possibility there will be some general obligation bond opportunities up for the voters.  

We are also watching the work of the conference committee for the operating budget.  There are two figures--one from each side--$0 and $8 million dollars.  Hopefully the $8 million dollars will prevail.  It is a long way from the $16.9 million that we need.  

Chancellor Lind was asked about the initiatives for FY04.  They are waiting to see how the FY03 initiatives are funded.  SAC has been given the charge to look at this as soon as we see what the budget turns out to be. 

We are moving ahead on the West Ridge Research Building.  We are going to be paying for it ourselves with some of the overhead cost recovery.  In addition we hope for $2 million dollars from the legislature.  We need the building and hope to open in October 2004.  The Music department will relocate to Harwood Hall during the renovation of the Fine Arts Building.  There will be a rededication of the Brooks Building in September.  They hope to move into it this summer. 

There is a challenge to find additional dollars for two projects that have gone out to bid.  The costs came in so high that we can't deal with them with the existing dollars.  One is the classroom addition for the Bristol Bay campus.  The other is a Learning Center at Fort Yukon.  We will be looking at other sources of funding.  

	Guest Speaker - Craig Dorman, Vice President for Research

Craig Dorman indicated that he has had the opportunity to meet a number of faculty and appreciates the opportunity to address the Senate today.  He would like to meet informally with anyone else.  He has spent a large amount of time in research and education.  He has been in Alaska for two months.  As a member of statewide he had been to Anchorage and Juneau to meet with faculty.  

The direct responsibility for management of research and education lies with the individual MAU's and faculty members.  He will be working through the administrations to assist them in helping faculty do their jobs better.  He does believe in strategies and planning.  There is an opportunity for enhanced collaboration.  It is better for all of us if we are working together.  To that end, he has taken a couple of steps.  He has asked the three provosts for nominations for a systemwide  research advisory council.  He hopes that a council of that nature can advise him on what the needs are for research and what some of the concerns are including research climate, support for research, the need for facilities, positions, how we manage and handle our indirect cost recovery, etc.  There is a  whole range of issues.  

The second reason for doing that is because of a resolution before the  joint state legislature.  It talks about a joint federal-state research and development plan.  It will put the university in a position to help define in terms of both state and federal initiatives those items we should be spending our time on most directly to help the state.  

His personal philosophy is that in a major research institution, such as the University of Alaska, it is important to focus first on the need of the science itself.  Part of that means providing facilities, maintaining excellence in areas that are appropriate and unique to the nature of the institution, maintaining the capacity to support science as a whole.  Secondarily, its important for a state university to be very responsive to the needs and interests of the state.  

	"Web for Faculty" - Ann Tremarello & Colleen Abrams

Ann Tremarello said working with the Faculty Senate over the years has been very rewarding for her.  Retention is going to be very important for UAF over the next few years.  Faculty are so important for retention.  What makes the difference is the teaching and learning that students get here--the individual attention.  She emphasized that the faculty are the reason for student retention.  Ann Tremarello recognized Gayle Gregory as a driving force in the work of her office.  

Colleen Abrams, Coordinator of On-line Student Academic Services, demonstrated the "Web for Faculty."  It is real time and is interactive with Banner.  

V	Governance Reports

	A.	ASUAF - D. Miller

Derek Miller said that they have finalized the budget for ASUAF of approximately $400,000.  It includes three major items including the KSUA-TV station.  This will be a student run television station.  Also included is increased funding for the Sun Star newspaper.  They are looking at adding color and increasing the quality.  A student assistant Leadership Coordinator position has been established for next year.  For the first time ever, they were able to include items for TVC such as coffee and tutors.  

The blood drive was very successful with 162 people participating and 116 unit collected. They were happy to provide that service.  

The student senate passed a resolution supporting the curriculum, advising, and program planning (CAP).  This will be presented to the Chancellor and the Provost.   A copy will go to the Faculty Senate leadership.  They also passed a resolution making Joe Hayes the first ASUAF president-emeritus.  He has done so much for ASUAF, for students in general at UAF, and the whole university.  He has continued his support for the university.  

ASUAF will be hosting a retirement reception for Dean Kirts at 5:00 p.m. today.  

	B.	Staff Council - S. McCrea

Scott McCrea was not available for a report.  

	C.	President's Comments - N. Swazo

Norm Swazo asked who had received a letter from former faculty member Mr. Sengupta.  He responded to Mr. Sengupta denying his request for a resolution from the Faculty Senate.  He did so having investigated the U.S. Supreme Court disposition and the Alaska Supreme Court decision.  The University of Alaska prevailed on all counts forward from the initial grievance procedure hearing through the litigation to the Supreme Court.  There was clearly no basis in Senate policy and procedure, no basis in university policy and procedure for the Senate to take action.  A letter has been transmitted to Mr. Sengupta informing him of that decision.  

The evaluation of administrators has been ongoing.  This is the first time we are using the new policy on review.  The review of the Dean of the Graduate School Joe Kan has been completed.  The Provost has meet with the ad hoc committee and the Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee and he is preparing his own final supervisor's comments.  Dean Kan has announced his retirement at the end of the next academic year.  

The second dean undergoing review is Dean Vera Alexander.  It is moving slower and they hope to have their review completed later in May.  Norm Swazo expects that since members of the Faculty Appeals & Oversight committee may not be present to meet in joint session with the ad hoc committee conducting that review, the Provost may choose  to meet with the Administrative Committee when that report becomes available.  

Provost Reichardt is due to be reviewed next year.  

Godwin Chukwu spoke about the current evaluation of Dr. Kan and indicated that the process is still on going.  He pointed out that the process and guidelines that were put together last year are working very well.  

Norm Swazo, on behalf of the Faculty Senate, presented to Sheri Layral a certificate of appreciation for outstanding service during academic year 2001-2002.  Godwin Chukwu and Jane Weber presented a gift certificate and card.  

	D.	President-Elect's Comments - G. Chukwu

Godwin Chukwu thanked the senators for their support over the past year.  One remarkable achievement was the establishment of the UAF Senate newsletter.  It has worked well; it has been very informative and we have used it to reach a lot of faculty.  We want to use it as an  information forum with things related to the Faculty Senate.  We hope to have continued contribution next year from all the senate members about their colleges/schools.  

Godwin Chukwu asked for approval of the following resolution.  It was approved unanimously.  

RESOLUTION  OF  APPRECIATION
FOR
Norman K. Swazo

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

Whereas, Norm Swazo has served as Senator to the UAF Faculty Senate from 1995-97, and 1999-2002; and 

Whereas, Norm Swazo has served as a member of the Faculty Affairs Committee from 1995-97 and 1999; and 

WHEREAS, Norm Swazo has served as Chair of the Administrative Committee and as President-Elect of the UAF Faculty Senate for 2000-2001; and 

WHEREAS, Norm Swazo has served as a member of the UAF Governance Coordinating Committee from 2000-2002; and 

WHEREAS, Norm Swazo has served as a member of the UA Faculty Alliance, as a member of the UA Systemwide Governance Council from 2000-2002; and 

Whereas, Norm Swazo has served as President of the UAF Faculty Senate from 2001-2002; and 

WHEREAS, Norm Swazo has served as Chair of the UAF Accreditation Standard Nine (Institutional Integrity) Working Group; and 

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

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

	E.	Academic Liaison - Carol Gold

Carol Gold announced the new Academic Liaison for next year is Eva Kopacz from UAA.  

The Statewide Information Technology Council has asked the different information technology council at the MAU level to write procedures for termination of email accounts.  

The Faculty Development office in Fairbanks and Anchorage are organizing a conference on Women in Higher Education/Women Administrators in Higher Education in September in Anchorage.  Janet Jacobs from Statewide is the contact.  

Carol Gold indicated that the most exciting thing that she has done has been to travel around the state and visit faculty members and institutional settings all over the state.  Faculty in the three major urban areas tend to forget the fabulous things that are going on elsewhere in the state.   Carol Gold encourages faculty to take advantage of anything that can encourage the interaction and cooperation between the major urban centers and the rural areas.  We have a lot to learn from what is going on out there.    

VI	Public Comments/Questions

Tonya Trabant from Career Services spoke of three items.  First is an on-line job board.  This is available to all the rural campuses as well as everyone on campus.  Jobs are posted on the job board.  If an employer has their own site, there will be a link.  All the on-campus recruitment's are also posted on the job board.  It's a hot item now for student jobs for the summer.  The second items is an update on Career Expo.  It was the largest employer event on this campus.  There were 70 employers and 1,150 applicants.  The Faculty Senate co-sponsor a reception for the employers and faculty and staff.  This provided a great opportunity to network with employers.  Employers said they had  three top skills they are looking for when recruiting at UAF:  communication, work ethics, and a positive attitude.  Technical skills are further down the list.  They want someone they can teach, that they can talk to, and that is going to have the right attitude and work ethic.  

Tonya Trabant is looking for input in two areas:  the on-campus recruiting program and the Career Services Guide.  

VII	Unfinished Business

	A.	Motion to approve the list of the 2001-2002 degree candidates, submitted by Administrative Committee

Godwin Chukwu introduced the motion and asked for the Senate's approval.  The motion passed unanimously.

MOTION PASSED:
============

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

	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately

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

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

	B.	Motion to approved "O" syllabus requirements, submitted by Core Review

Doug Schamel indicated that the Core Review Committee would like to provide guidance to faculty teaching "O" & "W" courses.  About half the courses do not designate in their syllabus why the course is "O" or "W" and don't explain to students what they have to do to complete work to earn that.  What the committee is attempting to do is clarify to the faculty and students what the designator means.  Abel Bult was confused about a couple of points in the motion.  A couple of friendly amendments were made to the statement on syllabus content.  After discussion about the different syllabus requirements for the different "O" categories, the motion failed.  

MOTION FAILED:
===========

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to adopt the recommendation of the Core Review Committee requiring a syllabus statement for Oral Intensive "O" courses.

	EFFECTIVE:   	Fall semester 2002.

	RATIONALE:    	With the high turnover of faculty teaching 
		"O" courses, there seems to be confusion about what 
		needs to be included in such courses.  The inclusion 
		of wording such as this in the course syllabus will 
		better insure that the course actually contains the 
		appropriate material AND that students are aware 
		that this is indeed an "O" course.

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

	C.	Motion to approved "W" syllabus requirements, submitted by Core Review

Doug Schamel stated that this was a similar motion to require a syllabus statement on "W" courses.  The motion passed. 

MOTION PASSED: 
============

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to adopt the recommendation of the Core Review Committee requiring a syllabus statement for Writing Intensive "W" courses.

	EFFECTIVE:   	Fall semester 2002.

	RATIONALE:   	With the high turnover of faculty, there 
		appears to be some confusion about what constitutes a 
		"W" course.  The inclusion of this type of statement will 
		guide the faculty in formulating the course, and inform 
		students not only that this is a "W" course, but the 
		requirements of such a course.

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

Syllabus Statement Regarding the Writing-Intensive (W) Requirement

This statement, or a statement similar to it, MUST appear in the syllabus of each "W" course.  Courses failing to provide this information jeopardize their continuing status as "W" courses.

Below is an example paragraph that teachers could include on their syllabi when instructing Writing-Intensive (W) courses.  The paragraph includes the key elements of the Writing-Intensive requirement.  

This course is designated as Writing-Intensive (W).  This designation means that the "W" is evident in the course number on the syllabus (e.g., English 313W).  The designation applies to upper-division courses and means that a majority of the graded work in the course will be derived from writing activities.  Here are the general guidelines for the writing expected in this course:

   *  Students will complete an ungraded writing sample on or near the first day of class to help the teacher assess writing ability and general competence.
   *  Students will receive comments from the teacher and/or peers on drafts of written work.  In other words, students will work through a draft-and-redraft process so that they can apply feedback and become more effective writers.  If students complete a major research project, the teacher will supervise the students’ writing in stages.
   *  Students will meet individually with the teacher at least once during the term to discuss their writing.

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

	D. 	Motion to amend the definition of Scholastic and Academic standing, submitted by Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee 

Ed Bueler spoke on behalf of the Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee.  The motion was initiated to clarify the academic standing of graduates.  It also clarifies GPA calculations.  The motion passed.  

MOTION PASSED:
============

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the Graduate Academic Regulations (pages 36 and 37 of the 2001-2002 Catalog) and How to Earn a Degree section (page 39 of the 2001-2002 Catalog) as follows:

[[  ]] = Deletions
CAPS = Additions

(page 36):

ACADEMIC STANDARDS

[[Graduate Scholastic Standing]]

[[Your UAF academic record will reflect the GPA for all courses taken after the bachelor's degree (or last degree at UAF).  However, your scholastic standing in the graduate program is determined by the GPA of the courses identified on your Advancement to Candidacy (including repeats).  If you haven't advanced to candidacy, your scholastic standing is determined by the GPA of all courses taken since the bachelor's or last degree.]]

(page 37):

Repeating Courses

All grades (original and retakes) for a course completed at UAF will be shown on the permanent record.  [[For scholastic standing calculations, the GPA calculation for graduate students includes all courses listed on your advancement of candidacy (including repeats and undergraduate courses approved for your program).  If you haven't been advanced to candidacy yet, your GPA will include all courses (including repeats) you have taken since your admission to graduate study.]]  ONLY THE LAST GRADE EARNED FOR A COURSE IS USED IN COMPUTING YOUR GPA UNLESS THE COURSE IS ONE THAT CAN BE REPEATED FOR CREDIT.

(page 39):

GENERAL UNIVERSITY REQUIREMENTS

Grade Point Average and Grade Requirements

You must have a cumulative GPA of 3.0 (B) for good standing and IN COURSES IDENTIFIED ON YOUR ADVANCEMENT TO CANDIDACY FORM to graduate.  You must earn an A or B grade (no P grades) in 400-level courses; a C grade will be accepted in 600-level courses [[provided you maintain a B average.  For the purposes of graduate good standing and meeting degree requirements, all grades, including those generated from retaking a course, are included in the GPA.]]  FOR THE PURPOSES OF SATISFYING DEGREE REQUIREMENTS PROVIDED YOU REMAIN IN GOOD STANDING.

	EFFECTIVE:  Immediately Upon Chancellor approval

	RATIONALE:  The dual concepts of 'graduate scholastic 
		standing' and 'good standing' are redundant and 
		confusing.  Though 'graduate scholastic standing' is 
		defined in the existing catalog, it has no consequences.  
		Eliminating 'graduate scholastic standing' will produce 
		one concept of 'good standing' as for undergraduates, 
		but with a higher GPA standard (3.0 vs. 2.0).  The manner 
		in which retaken courses will contribute to the GPA is 
		hereby clarified and will match the situation for 
		undergraduates.  Confusion about how the GPA is 
		calculated before advancement to candidacy is hereby 
		eliminated.  The catalog will be slightly shorter.

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

	E.	Motion to amend the Appeals Policy for Academic Decisions Other Than Assignment of Grades, submitted by Faculty Affairs

Abel Bult indicated that this issue was brought to the Senate by the Provost.  The Faculty Affairs Committee looked at the policy and recommend changes to deal with issues of conflict of interest and the department chair being a member of the committee.  Another issue concerns when written materials can be added to the file for the committee's review.  The proposed changes address these concerns.  The motion passed.  

MOTION PASSED:
============

The UAF Faculty Senate, upon recommendation of the Faculty Affairs Committee, moves to amend the Appeals Policy for Academic Decisions Other Than Assignment of Grades as follows:

   	EFFECTIVE:   	Immediately

	RATIONALE:   	The presence on the committee of a tenure-
		track faculty member from the academic unit in which 
		the decision was made creates a perception of conflict 
		of interest.  By making this member a non-voting 
		member, conflict of interest issues are avoided.  In 
		addition, this faculty member will be able to provide the 
		voting members with clarifications and information 
		relevant to the academic unit negating the necessity 
		of a "program's monitor."  In addition, the presence of 
		the department chair of the program in which the decision 
		was made as the program's monitor of all proceedings 
		also creates a perception of conflict of interest.  This 
		section has been deleted because the campus judicial 
		officer or his/her designee, who serves as a nonvoting 
		facilitator, serves in an advisory role to help preserve 
		consistent hearing protocol and records and, therefore, 
		additional oversight by the department chair is 
		unnecessary.  Procedures for the submission of written 
		materials that shall be considered by the committee have 
		been added for clarification.

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

CAPS  =  Additions
[[   ]]  =  Deletions

APPEALS POLICY FOR ACADEMIC DECISIONS
Other Than Assignment of Grades

I.  Introduction

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

The following procedures are designed to provide a means for students to seek review of academic decisions alleged to be arbitrary and capricious. Before taking formal action, a student must attempt to resolve the issue informally. A student who files a written request for review under the following procedures shall be expected to abide by the final disposition of the review, as provided below, and may not seek further review of the matter under any other procedure within the university.

II.  Definitions

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

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

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

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

III.  Procedures

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

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

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

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

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

B.  The formal review will be conducted as follows.

1.  This formal review is initiated by the student through a signed, written request to the Provost.

a.  The student's request for formal review may be submitted using university forms specifically designed for this purpose and available from the Office of the Provost.

b.  By submitting a request for a review, the student acknowledges that no additional mechanisms exist within the university for the formal review of the decision, and that the university's administration including the college dean/director can not influence or affect the outcome of the formal review.

c.  The request for a formal review must be received no later than 10 days after the student has learned the outcome of the informal review (IIIA4).

d.  The request must detail the basis for the allegation that the decision was made on a basis other than sound professional judgment based upon standard academic policies, procedures and practices.

2.  The Provost will appoint a 5 member review committee composed of the following:

a.  One NON-VOTING tenure-track faculty member from the academic unit in which the decision was made. THIS INDIVIDUAL SHALL SERVE IN AN ADVISORY ROLE. THIS FACULTY MEMBER SHALL NOT BE THE INDIVIDUAL(S) AGAINST WHOM THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED.

b. Two tenure-track faculty members from within the college or school but outside of the unit in which the decision was made. If available, one of these two members will be selected from the members of the UAF Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee.

c. One tenure-track faculty member from outside the college or school in which the decision was made. If available, this member is to be selected from the members of the UAF Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee.

d. The fifth member to be appointed by the Provost will be a non-voting student representative.

e. The campus judicial officer or his/her designee shall serve as a nonvoting facilitator for appeals hearings. This individual shall serve in an advisory role to help preserve consistent hearing protocol and records.

[[f. The department chair of the program in which the decision was made will act as the program's monitor of all proceedings.]]

3.  The committee must schedule a mutually agreeable date, time and location for the appeal hearing within 10 working days of receipt of the student's formal request.

a.  During this and subsequent meetings, all parties involved shall protect the confidentiality of the matter according to the provisions of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and any other applicable federal, state or university policies.

B. TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE COMMITTEE, ALL WRITTEN MATERIALS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE HEARING FACILITATOR NO LATER THAN 48 HOURS BEFORE THE START OF THE SCHEDULED APPEALS HEARING. TO GIVE ALL INTERESTED PARTIES A CHANCE TO SUBMIT WRITTEN MATERIALS, AT LEAST THREE BUSINESS DAYS SHALL ELAPSE BETWEEN THE TIME THE MEETING IS ANNOUNCED AND THE START OF THE MEETING.  NEW WRITTEN MATERIALS PRESENTED AFTER THE 48-HOUR DEADLINE OR PRESENTED DURING THE MEETING WILL ONLY BE CONSIDERED BY AGREEMENT OF ALL VOTING COMMITTEE MEMBERS.  THESE PROCEDURES RELATED TO WRITTEN MATERIALS ALSO APPLY TO ALL SUBSEQUENT MEETINGS.

[[b.]] C.  Throughout the proceedings, the committee will encourage a mutually agreeable resolution.

 [[c.]] D. The mandatory first item of business at this meeting is for the committee to rule on the validity of the student's request. Grounds for dismissal of the request for review are:

1) The student has not provided sufficient reason in support of the allegation that the academic decision was arbitrary and capricious.

2) This is not the first properly prepared request for appeal.

3) The request was not made within the policy deadlines.

[[d.]] E.  In the event that the committee votes to dismiss the request, a written notice of dismissal must be forwarded to the student, instructor, department chair, dean/director and provost within five days of the decision, and will state clearly the reasoning for the dismissal of the request.

4.  Acceptance for consideration of the student's request will result in the following:

a.  A request for, and receipt of, a formal written response from the program department chair to the student's allegation.

b.  A second meeting scheduled to meet within 10 days of the decision to review the request.

1) The student and the department chair or a representative of the program will be invited to attend the meeting.

2) The meeting will be closed to outside participation, and neither the student nor the instructor or department chair may be accompanied by an advocate or representative. Other matters of format will be announced in advance.

3) The proceedings will be tape recorded and the tapes will be stored with the campus Judicial Officer.

4) The meeting must be informal, non-confrontational and fact-finding, where both the student and instructor or department chair may provide additional relevant and useful information and can provide clarification of facts for materials previously submitted.

5. The final decision of the committee will be made in private by a majority vote.

a.  Actions which the committee can take if it accepts the student's allegation may include, but are not limited to, the following:

1) direct the program instructor or department chair to reconsider the decision,

2) provide a final alternative decision.

b.  The academic decision review committee proceedings will result in the preparation of written findings and conclusions.

c.  A formal, written report of the decision must be forwarded to the student, instructor, program/department chair, dean and Provost within five days of the meeting. The Provost shall then be responsible for communicating the decision to other relevant offices (e.g., Admissions, Registrar).

d.  The decision of the committee is final.

C.  The entire process must be completed by the end of the semester in which the decision first took effect.

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

	F.	Motion to amend the Grade Appeals Policy, submitted by Faculty Affairs

Peter McRoy and Abel Bult indicated that when reviewing the policy on academic decision it was noted the same problems existed with the Grade Appeals policy.  The changes reflect the same changes as discussed with the previous motion.  The motion passed.  

MOTION PASSED:
============

The UAF Faculty Senate, upon recommendation of the Faculty Affairs Committee, moves to amend the Grade Appeals Policy as follows:

	EFFECTIVE:    	Immediately

	RATIONALE:   	The presence on the grade appeals committee 
		of a tenure-track faculty member from the academic unit 
		in which the course was offered creates a perception of 
		conflict of interest.  By making this member a non-voting 
		member, conflict of interest issues are avoided.  In 
		addition, this faculty member will be able to provide the 
		voting members with clarifications and information 
		relevant to the academic unit against which the appeal is 
		directed.

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

CAPS =  Additions
[[  ]]  =  Deletions

GRADE APPEALS POLICY

I.	Introduction

The University of Alaska is committed to the ideal of academic freedom and so recognizes that the assignment of grades is a faculty responsibility.  Therefore, the University administration shall not influence or affect an assigned grade or the review of an assigned grade.

The following procedures are designed to provide a means for students to seek review of final course grades alleged to be arbitrary and capricious.  Before taking formal action, a student must attempt to resolve the issue informally with the instructor of the course.  A student who files  a written request for review under the following procedures shall be expected to abide by the final disposition of the review, as provided below, and may not seek further review of the matter under any other procedure within the university.

II.	Definitions

A.	A "grade" refers to final letter grades A, B, C, D, F, and Pass. The I (incomplete) designates a temporary grade, for one year not a final grade, so it is not subject to appeal until it becomes final.

B.	For the purpose of this procedure, "arbitrary and capricious" grading means:

1.	The assignment of a course grade to a student on some basis other than performance in the course,
	or

2.	The assignment of a course grade to a student by resorting to standards different from those which were applied to other students in that course,
	or

3.	The assignment of a course grade by a substantial, unreasonable and unannounced departure from the instructor's previously articulated standards.

C.	"Grading errors" denotes errors in the calculation of grades rather than errors in judgment.

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

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

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

G.	"Final grade" for the purposes of this policy is the grade assigned for a course upon its completion.

H.	A "grading error" is a mathematical miscalculation of a final grade or an inaccurate recording of the final grade.

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

III.	Procedures

A.	Errors by an instructor in determining and recording a grade or by the university staff in transcribing the grade are sources of error that can be readily corrected through the student's prompt attention following the normal change of grade procedure.

1.	It is a student's obligation to notify the instructor of any possible error immediately by the most direct means available.  If this is through an oral conversation and/or the issue is not immediately resolved, it is the student's responsibility to provide the instructor with a signed, written request for review of the grade, with a copy to the unit department head and the dean of the college or school in which the course was offered.

2.	Notification must be received by the instructor and/or department head within 15 days from the first day of instruction of the next regular semester (i.e., fall semester for grade issued at the end of the previous spring semester or summer session; spring semester for grade issued at the end of the previous fall semester).

3.	The instructor is responsible for notifying the student in writing of his or her final judgment concerning the grade in question within 5 days of receipt of the request, and for promptly submitting the appropriate change of grade form to the [[Director of Admissions and Records]] REGISTRAR'S OFFICE if an error occurred.

4.	If the student does not receive a response from the instructor or the unit department head by the required deadline, the student must seek the assistance of the dean of the college or school in which the course was offered.

5.	If the instructor is no longer an employee of the university or is otherwise unavailable, the student must bring the matter to the attention of the unit department head who will make every effort to contact the instructor by the 15th class day of the next regular semester.

a.	If the instructor can not be contacted but course records are available, the department head will effect resolution within 5 class days of notification by the student.  The department head may correct a grading error through the regular change of grade process on behalf of the instructor.

b.	If the instructor can not be contacted and course records are either unavailable or indecisive, the student may request a review following the procedure outlined below.

c.	If the instructor can be contacted and elects to participate, then a constructive participation is to be welcomed by the review committee.  The procedures of Paragraph III.A.5.a. or  Paragraph III.A.5.b. will be instituted if the instructor withdraws from participation.

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

B.	If no such error occurred, the remaining option is by review for alleged arbitrary and capricious grading, or for instances where the course instructor is unavailable and satisfaction is not forthcoming from the appropriate department head.

1.	This review is initiated by the student through a signed, written request to the department head with a copy to the dean of the college or school in which the course was offered.
 
a.	The student's request for review may be submitted using university forms specifically designed for this purpose and available at the Admissions and Records Office.

b.	By submitting a request for a review, the student acknowledges that no additional mechanisms exist within the university for the review of the grade, and that the university's administration can not influence or affect the outcome of the review.

c.	The request for a review must be received no later than 20 days after the first day of instruction in the next regular semester (i.e., fall semester for grade issued at the end of the previous spring semester or summer session; spring semester for grade issued at the end of the previous fall semester) or within 5 days of receipt of notification of the process by the dean/director of the college or school in which the course was offered.

d.	The request must detail the basis for the allegation that a grade was improper and the result of arbitrary and capricious grading and must present the relevant evidence.

2.	It is the responsibility of the department head to formally notify both the instructor who issued the grade and the dean of the unit's college or school that a request for a review of grade has been received.

3.	If the instructor of the course is also the department head, the Dean of the College will designate another department head within the college to act as the department's representative for all proceedings.  If the instructor of the course is also the Dean of the College, the Provost will designate another Dean within the University to act as the college's monitor of all proceedings.

4.	The dean will appoint a 5 member review committee composed of the following:

a.	One NON-VOTING tenure-track faculty member from the academic unit in which the course was offered (other than the instructor of the course). THIS INDIVIDUAL SHALL SERVE IN AN ADVISORY ROLE.

b.	Two tenure-track faculty members from within the college or school but outside of the unit in which the course was offered.  If available, one of these two members will be selected from the members of the UAF Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee.

c.	One tenure track faculty member from outside the college or school in which the course was offered.  If available, this member is to be selected from the members of the UAF Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee.

d.	The fifth member to be appointed by the dean will be a non-voting student representative.

e.	The campus judicial officer or his/her designee shall serve as a nonvoting facilitator for grade appeals hearings. This individual shall serve in an advisory role to help preserve consistent hearing protocol and records.

5.	The committee must schedule a mutually agreeable date, time and location for the appeal hearing within 10 working days of receipt of the student's request.

a.	During this and subsequent meetings, all parties involved shall protect the confidentiality of the matter according to the provisions of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and any other applicable federal, state or university policies.

b.	Throughout the proceedings, the committee will encourage a mutually agreeable resolution.

c.	The mandatory first item of business at this meeting is for the committee to rule on the validity of the student's request.  Grounds for dismissal of the request for review are:

1)	This is not the first properly prepared request for appeal of the particular grade.

2)	The actions of the instructor do not constitute arbitrary and capricious grading, as defined herein.

3)	The request was not made within the policy deadlines.

4)	The student has not taken prior action to resolve the grade conflict with the instructor, as described under section III, A.

d.	In the event that the committee votes to dismiss the request, a written notice of dismissal must be forwarded to the student, instructor, department head and dean within five days of the decision, and will state clearly the reasoning for the dismissal of the request.

6.	Acceptance for consideration of the student's request will result in the following:

a.	A request for and receipt of a formal response from the instructor to the student's allegation.

b.	A second meeting scheduled to meet within 10 days of the decision to review the request.

1)	The student and instructor will be invited to attend the meeting.

2)	The meeting will be closed to outside participation, and neither the student nor instructor may be accompanied by an advocate or representative. Other matters of format will be announced in advance.

3)	The proceedings will be tape recorded and the tapes will be stored with the campus Judicial Officer.

4)	The meeting must be informal, non-confrontational and fact-finding, where both the student and instructor may provide additional relevant and useful information and can provide clarification of facts for materials previously submitted.

7.	The final decision of the committee will be made in private by a majority vote.

a.	Actions which the committee can take if it accepts the student's allegation of arbitrary and capricious grading must be directed towards a fair and just resolution, and may include, but are not limited to, the following:

1)	Direct the instructor to grade again the student's work under the supervision of the department [[head]] CHAIR,

2)	Direct the instructor to administer a new final examination and/or paper in the course,

3)	Direct a change of the student's registration status (i.e., withdrawn, audit, dropped) in the course.

b.	The academic decision review committee proceedings will result in the preparation of written findings and conclusions. Conclusions will result in one of the following:

1)	The request for a grade change is denied.

2)	The request for a grade change is upheld; the review committee requests the course instructor to change the grade; and the course instructor changes the grade in accordance with MAU rules and procedures.

3)	The request for a grade change is upheld; the course instructor is either unavailable to change the grade or refuses to, and the review committee directs the dean/director to initiate the process specified by MAU rules and procedures to change the grade to that specified by the review committee.

c.	A formal, written report of the decision must be forwarded to the student, instructor, department [[head]] CHAIR, dean and [[Director of Admissions and Records]] REGISTRAR  within five days of the meeting.

d.	The decision of the committee is final.

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

	G.	Motion to amend the UAF Regulations for Emeritus Status, submitted by Faculty Affairs

Peter McRoy indicated that this brings UAF's regulation in line with the Board of Regents changes to the Emeritus policy and makes the Chancellor the final decision maker.  The motion passed unanimously.

MOTION PASSED:
============

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the UAF Regulation for Emeritus Status as follows:

[[  ]]  =  Deletions
CAPS =  Additions

Emeritus Status

A. 	A full-time faculty member who has already attained the 
	rank of full professor and who has retired after a minimum 
	of ten years at the University of Alaska immediately prior to 
	retirement is eligible for consideration as an emeritus 
	professor.  Nominations for the emeritus professor must 
	originate with the faculty.  The process may be initiated by 
	*any three faculty members, one of whom must belong to 
	the retiree's primary academic unit, for review by the 
	appropriate dean.  The dean, in consultation with the 
	retiree's primary academic unit, will make recommendations 
	to the Provost who will then forward his/her 
	recommendations to the Chancellor.  The Chancellor's 
	[[recommendations are to be forwarded to the President for 
	approval]] DECISION IS FINAL AND NON-REVIEWABLE.

B. 	In exceptional circumstances, the CHANCELLOR, OR IN THE 
	CASE OF STATEWIDE ADMINISTRATION EMPLOYEES,  THE 
	president, may confer emeritus status to other meritorious 
	employees who have provided A MINIMUM OF TEN (10) YEARS 
	OF [[long and]] faithful service of high quality to the 
	institution.  Recommendations [[should]] WILL proceed along 
	the appropriate administrative channels to the CHANCELLOR 
	OR president.

C. 	The Board of Regents may confer emeritus status upon a 
	retiring President of the University.

D.	Privileges available to emeritus employees include the following:

	1.      Listing in the appropriate university directory and
		catalog.
	2.	Invitations to major university functions.
	3.	Mailing notices of campus functions and social gathering.
	4.	Use of library, gymnasium, and food facilities ON THE 
		SAME BASIS AS ACTIVE EMPLOYEES IN THEIR CATEGORY.

	5.	Access to laboratories, office space at the discretion of
		the dean or director, research and/or electronic
		communication facilities (where such access is available
		at no charge to the university and does not displace other
		faculty and/or students).
	6.	Free parking permit.
	7.	Receipt of a permanent identification card.
	8.	Waiver of tuition for courses in which they themselves
		are enrolled.

E. 	Upon appointment to emeritus status a retiring employee shall be designated by the proper title Emeritus/Emerita.

* nominations must have the support of three faculty

	EFFECTIVE:   	Immediately
				Upon Chancellor's Signature

	RATIONALE:  	These changes will bring the UAF Regulations in 
		line with Regents Policy & Regulations.

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

	H.	Motion to adopt a statement of Censure of Administrators, submitted by Faculty Appeals & Oversight

No one from the committee was at the Senate to address the motion.  Godwin Chukwu indicated that the committee was charged with formulating a procedure.  Abel Bult felt there were no procedural guidelines included in this motion.  Ron Illingworth made a motion to refer it to committee.  The motion to refer it to committee passed unanimously.

MOTION REFERED BACK TO COMMITTEE:
=============================

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to adopt the following statement (procedure) on Censure of Administrators.  

	EFFECTIVE:   Immediately

	RATIONALE:   At present there is no policy or procedure 
		statement in force and one is needed

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

CENSURE OF ADMINISTRATORS

1.      The review (in the broadest sense) of the performance of administrators is an important complementary activity to the review of faculty.  Both groups contribute to the advancement of the University when they carry out their respective responsibilities effectively, and either can seriously interfere with the proper functioning of the University as a whole when they perform ineffectively.

2.      The various peer reviews of faculty, including the mentoring of untenured faculty, promotion, and tenure review, and post-tenure review as well as continuing, in-depth contact with students equip UAF faculty with a unique and comprehensive understanding of the general health of the University and its actual progress in meeting its stated goals.

3.      In a system of shared governance, the administrative function includes a critical catalytic role which, when performed well, results in the accomplishments of academic units surpassing the sum of individual faculty effort.

4.      UAF faculty are in a unique position to offer insights on the effectiveness of academic administrators of particular and campus-wide programs at UAF. They can readily see whether their efforts to teach, conduct research, and provide professional services are enhanced, not affected, or compromised by academic administrators.

5.      Faculty input into periodic reviews of academic administrators is provided for, although the system for accomplishing reviews is relatively new and lacking in a record of experience upon which to make judgments.

6.      As responsible members of the academic community, UAF faculty have an inherent responsibility, when circumstances indicate that academic programs and the health of the University are being impacted negatively by the behavior and decisions of State-wide administrators and their immediate staffs, the UAF chancellor and provost and their immediate staffs, and deans and directors and their immediate staffs to initiate the passage of a vote of no-confidence or censure.

7.      When, in the considered opinion of the majority of the Faculty Senate, an administrative decision or series of decisions are seriously harmful to the health and future of the University, the Senate may pass a vote of no-confidence or censure of the administrator or administrators making and carrying out such harmful decisions.  Such a petition to the Senate should include precise delineation and documentation of the problem and the attempts undertaken to mediate and resolve the problem before asking the Senate to pass a motion of censure.

8.      After the submission of a petition to the Senate, the Senate should appoint an Ad hoc committee to investigate the allegations and make recommendations for a final attempt for resolving the situation before turning the matter over to the full Faculty Senate for discussion and passage of censure.

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

	I.	Resolution to endorse the position statement of CACNE, submitted by the Administrative Committee

Gary Holton spoke about the resolution and indicated that it was a recommendation to support the CACNE proposal on the Master Plan.  The position paper asks for more recognition in terms of physical artwork and monuments on the campus of native heritage and culture.  

Peter McRoy supports the resolution but objected to the specific space mentioned in the resolution.  George Charles, a member of CACNE,  stated that the Master Plan map had already designated that particular space as an open space.  CACNE saw this as an opportunity to make a statement defining a location where there can be a strong visual statement of the true contribution of Alaska Native people.  The motion passed with a vote of 12 yes and 5 nays.  

RESOLUTION PASSED:
================

WHEREAS, the University of Alaska Fairbanks aspires to serve as the premiere higher educational center for Alaska Natives, and

WHEREAS, the University of Alaska Fairbanks aspires to serve as a model to demonstrate how cultural diversity strengthens a university and society, and

WHEREAS, these strategic plan goals include proactive pursuit of opportunities to incorporate indigenous culture into higher education, and

WHEREAS, these strategic plan goals include celebrating Alaska Native cultural activities at UAF to encourage and promote cross-cultural understanding and learning opportunities, and,

WHEREAS, the Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Alaska Native Education (CACNE) has submitted its recommendations on the UAF 2001 Draft Master Plan in a position statement dated 25 March 2002, and

WHEREAS, CACNE "takes a strong stand in keeping the area between the Natural Science Building and the UAF Museum as an open space…[to be] dedicated to culturally relevant symbols representing Alaska's First Nations: the Athabascans, Tlingit, Haida, Tsimshian, Eyak, Inupiaq, Yupiaq/Cupiaq, Yupiget, Alutiiq, Sugpiaq and Unangan/Unangus", and

WHEREAS, "Each Alaska Native group would have the opportunity to determine what form the representation [of cultural symbols] would be", and

WHEREAS, CACNE proposes further "that UAF consider adding Native Alaskan artwork and symbols to as many buildings and outdoor spaces on campus as possible",

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the UAF Faculty Senate endorses the proposal of the Chancellor’s Advisory Committee on Alaska Native Education and recommends that the university administration implement the CACNE proposal as part of the UAF 2001 Master Plan.  

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

	J.	Motion to amend the UAF Policies & Regulations for the Appointment and Evaluation of Faculty, submitted by Administrative Committee

Godwin Chukwu introduced the motion and asked Norm Swazo to comment.  Norm Swazo spoke about the problems that the promotion and tenure committees had during this year's review.  The deletion of much of the material from the 1997 "Blue Book" has resulted in a lack of critical material necessary to evaluate files.   Major changes in the 2000 version were made with the assumption that the collective bargaining agreements would address these points and that is not the case.  What we did was look at language in the collective bargaining agreements, as well as what current practice has been at university-wide committees in particular and make appropriate changes.  Also, we took into account that the ACCFT CBA refers only to the 1997 version of the "Blue Book." 

References to ACCFT in the new version are to minimize confusion amongst faculty about what the procedure is for United Academic's faculty as opposed to ACCFT faculty.  What is in there referencing ACCFT is adopted from the 1997 version and does not change that.  As a result of some issues this year, it turns out that it is unclear what we are to do when there is a reorganization and previous unit criteria are perhaps no longer valid.  With all those needs in mind, Provost Reichardt asked if we could move on this now so that we would have something in place for the fall.  

Ron Illingworth spoke about the changes that refer to the ACCFT collective bargaining agreement.  There are items that are added in that seem to apply only to ACCFT members, but don't need to be added in because they are outside the CBA.  He suggested that the Senate accept the changes as provided with the opportunity, before fall, to make a revision to the document.  He asked that the Administrative Committee be empowered to make any changes to the document that they feel need to be made to respond to concerns of ACCFT members.   Changes approved by the Administrative Committee can be brought before the Senate in September.  The motion passed.  

MOTION PASSED:
============

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to adopt the revised "UAF Faculty Appointment and Evaluation Policies" and the "UAF Regulations for the Appointment and Evaluation of Faculty".

	EFFECTIVE:  "UAF Faculty Appointment & Evaluation Policies"  - 
			Upon Board of Regents Approval

			"UAF Regulations for the Appointment & Evaluation 
			of Faculty"  - Upon Chancellor's Approval

	RATIONALE:  	Changes in collective bargaining agreements, 
		accreditation standards, and inadvertent deletions from 
		earlier versions of said policies and regulation require a 
		comprehensive revision herein presented for Senate 
		approval.  

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

Draft "UAF Faculty Appointment and Evaluation Policies" - http://www.uaf.edu/uafgov/faculty/facpol2002.rtf

Draft "UAF Regulations for the Appointment and Evaluation of Faculty" - http://www.uaf.edu/uafgov/faculty/facreg2002.rtf

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

	K.	Motion on Classified Research, submitted by Faculty Affairs 

Peter McRoy addressed the motion which the Faculty Affairs Committee has been discussing for many months.  The committee started with a draft motion from Norm Swazo.  We have had a number of meetings, talked to individual faculty, had a visitor from MIT, and based on that we have revised the initial motion to deal with the issue of classified research at this university.  Norm Swazo moved to postpone the motion indefinitely.  It was seconded by Debi McLean-Nelson.  Norm Swazo spoke about his reasons for the postponement which include:  1) The main motion as submitted by the Faculty Affairs Committee is so flawed that those flaws cannot be effectively and judiciously handled by way of a series of amendments from the floor in the time we have for business today.  2) I choose to move to postpone indefinitely rather than choose to move to refer to committee because the motion submitted for action today by the Faculty Affairs Committee demonstrates that the members of the committee are either unwilling or incapable of engaging the more difficult task of sorting through the applicable regulations that are to guide and establish university norms, hence the committee’s request that the Chancellor appoint yet another committee to undertake this task.  3) I choose to move to postpone indefinitely because despite all the preamble and context set forth in the main motion, the only action taken there is to request that the Chancellor establish a committee to identify and set forth university norms governing classified research – a request which this Senate may, but need not make, given that the Senate bylaws already authorize the President of the Senate to appoint ad hoc committees.  Clearly, (a) if the Faculty Affairs Committee is not up to the task of completing its charge to establish an effective policy/procedure governing classified research and (b) the President of the Senate can even now appoint an ad hoc committee to this task without need of making this an official request of the Chancellor, then the Senate is better served by postponing the main motion indefinitely and letting the appointed ad hoc committee engage the issues thoroughly.  4) Finally, I choose to move to postpone indefinitely the action proposed by the Faculty Affairs Committee because the motion I introduce today makes it quite clear that this institution is in no way ready to absorb the impact of classified research given the regulatory developments at the federal level now proposed and under review at the Department of Defense.

Roger Smith responded to the comments saying that the committee did not deal with the matter in the way the President asked because this matter requires a properly constituted committee to consider.  It needs the opinions to be expressed from all units which could be affected by these regulations that are planned to be put in place.  The Faculty Affairs Committee did not have such a constitution.  It is important that the body of faculty that consider this matter have representation from all areas that are interested.  Peter McRoy indicated that the committee did feel that they were not capable of dealing will all of the issues because of the size of the committee and it needed that responsible group appointed by the Senate and the Chancellor as a permanent committee to deal with the important issues of classified research.  They thought they could put together a policy of how they are going to do it.  Norm Swazo stressed that it is the responsibility of the Faculty Affairs Committee to establish faculty policies affecting scholarly activity and research.  The Faculty Affairs Committee could have asked for additional members or for this issue to be reassigned to an ad hoc committee.  Peter McRoy stated that the committee did what they were charged to do and that this is the policy.  The motion to postpone indefinitely failed with a vote of 6 yes and 13 nays. 

Further discussion on the original motion continued.  Abel Bult indicated that this motion sets up a framework to establish a committee to put down norms and policies for UAF to deal with the classified research.  Norm Swazo stated that he finds this inadequate even if amended.  What is intended is to adopt a procedure, which somehow allows us to establish a framework for classified research, which then yields a UAF policy.  It seems this establishes a three step process that accomplishes nothing in the near term.  

Roger Smith stated that this motion address the university's need for a statement of acceptable limitations on freedom to conduct research.  That is, not all types of research are permissible.  The university needs an efficient mechanism to intercept research proposals or contracts which stray outside acceptable limitations.  That is what the committee set out to do.  Care also needs to be taken to avoid unnecessary interference with acceptable proposals or contracts which do not fall outside the limitations which we would propose.  What we believe as a committee is to form a partnership between faculty and the administration and that is the basis of this motion.  What is needed is some way which makes the mechanism work smoothly and yet sorts out those proposals or contracts which apply restrictions on publication or on the conducting of research by people who are foreign nationals.  It may take a little longer but it is an important framework to put in properly.  Abel Bult indicated that the norms the committee form will be approved by the Faculty Senate.  When asked what amendments Norm Swazo could propose to make this motion acceptable, Norm responded that it would take a significant amount of time to make the series of amendments necessary to move this forward.  He had proposed establishing a committee which would also be an oversight committee reviewing proposals.  He had specifically  made reference to the need of the Senate to deal with the problem of classified research involving weapons production, weapons research and development, etc.  When asked if he would like to propose a motion to refer this back to committee, Norm Swazo responded that he has tried to stay out of the committee discussion granting Senator Bristow's request that we let the Faculty Affairs Committee deal with the issue.  Another reason is that some people feel he is too pushy on this topic as evident by a comment written on the agenda posted in the library.  Next to his name was written the words "UAF Taliban."  He does not wish to see this referred to committee again.  He prefers that the motion be voted up or down and recommends that this particular motion not be moved forward.  

Mike Davis commented that the scientific community was well represented on the Faculty Affairs Committee and that the motion is reflective of that.  But, he concurs that for this issue a wider group of people be involved in adopting a policy of what we are going to do on classified research.  It is his intention of not voting for this motion because of some of the concerns raised.  Having a wider group involved in the adoption of a policy will be beneficial for the university.  

The motion failed with a vote of 4 yes, 13 nays, and 1 abstention.

MOTION FAILED:
===========

The UAF Faculty Senate, upon recommendation of the Faculty Affairs Committee, moves to adopt the following procedure to establish a framework that will become a UAF policy governing approval of proposals and acceptance of contracts or grants for participation of UAF faculty and staff in sponsored research with particular concern for classified and proprietary research involving university-owned and/or university-operated facilities.

	EFFECTIVE:   Immediately
  
	RATIONALE:  Board of Regents policy P10.07.02 directs that 
		"All proposed sponsored projects will be reviewed for 
		constraints on disclosure and dissemination of the results 
		of the work" once UAF norms have been established and 
		that "After review of the proposed project and review of 
		the constraints on disclosure and dissemination of the 
		results of the work, the Chancellor or Chancellor's 
		designee may approve entering into contractual 
		agreements for classified and proprietary work under 
		governmental and private sponsorship". 

		The following procedure provides for 
		a.	Faculty input on review of policies related to 
			classified and proprietary research and the 
			design of a form to discover key information 
			regarding any restrictions on access to or 
			publication of the ensuing research.
		b.	Administrative processing of proposals and 
			contracts to ensure compliance with adopted 
			policies.
		c.	Interception and denial of approval for proposals 
			or contracts that are in violation of university 
			policy or norms.

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

L.	Motion on Classified Research, submitted by Norm Swazo.

Norm Swazo proposed a motion to suspend the approval of all  classified research project on this campus.  We need to taking into account the regulatory context that is very significant for classified research conducted at any university.  We need to be very careful about what we do with classified research because the National Industrial Security Program manual is essential to however we conduct ourselves on classified research.  Norm Swazo also referenced the article in The Chronicle of Higher Education.  We need to pay special attention to all Department of Defense funded contracts when the ideal of fundamental research is subject to dispute.  With the challenges facing us we would be prudent if we move to suspend approval until we see that the appropriate regulations are in place.  

Ron Illingworth indicated that this motion is to suspend approval of classified research until adoption of procedures and we have just defeated a motion to entertain development of any such regulation.  We have to do something to address the second part of this motion.   Norm Swazo indicated that within the Office of Research Integrity there is a committee that is responsible for addressing issues of regulatory compliance.  John Blake, Director of the Office Research Integrity, responded that their office facilitates the activities of five faculty run research compliance committees.  A research integrity committee was created by Ted DeLaca which has the chairs of the five committees.  In addition to that we have representation from other areas.  They have reviewed the NISP manual and clearly the compliance requirements for conducting classified research are fairly complicated.  Joan Leguard asked a number of questions on the establishment of procedures and who should be involved and the review of individual proposals.  John Blake stated that the establishment of procedures and whether the university should be involved in classified research should be a shared discussion between faculty and administration. 

Norm Swazo recommended that the Senate adopt the motion put forward not only because of the rationale, but because of two other issues.  To the extent that classified research will be conducted by faculty within the United Academics, the CBA has an article governing the dispute resolution process.  We are barely at a point of how to articulate that section of the CBA with the scientific misconduct regulations mandated by the Department of Health and Human Services for all such sponsored research.  Classified research presents additional difficulties.  We have not sorted out all the details and until we do so we place our faculty and this institution in significant legal jeopardy,  The proposal to suspend gives us time to think more about what we are doing.  

Peter McRoy felt that the previous proposal that was put together was exactly the kind of procedure that John Blake talked about for classified and proprietary research.  He, therefore, proposed an amendment of the motion under item 2 to include the previous motion as the regulations and procedures to be followed.  Abel Bult indicated that for both motions there was no definition of classified research.  Norm Swazo spoke against the amendment.  Classified research is defined by the Department of Defense in terms of the various levels of secrecy and clearance.  The regulations that are going to have to be put into place are largely the regulations outlined in NISP.  That is not what we have in the previous motion.  The amendment failed by a vote of 3 yes and 12 nays.  

The original motion passed with a vote of 8 yes, 7 nays, and 1 abstention.  

MOTION PASSED:
============

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to suspend approval of all classified research projects normally reviewed by the UAF Office of Sponsored Programs and undertaken by UAF faculty in UAF-owned or UAF-operated facilities until such time as: 

(1)	the Provost, acting on the written recommendations of the UAF Vice Provost for Research, the Director of the Office of Research Integrity, and the Committee on Research Integrity, certifies in writing to the UAF Faculty Senate that the university is compliant with the National Industrial Security Program (NISP) regulations, including any modifications to these regulations adopted by the Department of Defense following from the draft document, "Mandatory Procedures for Research and Technology Protection Within the DOD"; and,
(2)	the UAF Faculty Senate approves adoption of such regulations and related institutional procedures governing and enabling the responsible conduct of classified research.

Exclusion:  This action excludes proprietary research and private consulting undertaken by UAF faculty according to extant institutional policy and procedures.

	EFFECTIVE:   Immediately

RATIONALE:  Federal regulations governing classified research carried out in U.S. institutions of higher education are set forth in the National Industrial Security Program (NISP) manual distributed by the U.S. Department of Defense.  An institution of higher education may not conduct classified research unless the regulations set forth in this manual are adopted and implemented at such institutions.  UAF, as a research university, is an institution of higher education.  Therefore, UAF is obligated to demonstrate that it is compliant with these regulations.  As of the date of this motion, UAF is not compliant with NISP and, in fact, according to the Vice Provost for Research, has recently failed a security review.

Moreover, according to a report issued in The Chronicle of Higher Education (April 24, 2002; http://chronicle.com/ daily/2002/04/2002042401n.htm), the U.S. Department of Defense "is considering new restrictions on research sponsored by the military, including the possibility of imposing criminal sanctions against individuals who publish unclassified studies involving basic research…The proposed rules, detailed in a 110-page document titled 'Mandatory Procedures for Research and Technology Protection Within the DOD' are under review within the military." (bold letter-emphasis mine)  The new procedures as drafted “potentially [include] all unclassified science and technology", with required "authorization to disclose [unclassified] research findings or results."  "Sharing such information without clearance could lead to administrative sanctions or criminal penalties, even for work defined as fundamental research."  It should be noted that the proposed inclusion of "fundamental research" in the draft regulations revises the current exemption for fundamental research allowed under ITAR and EAR.  In light of this latest regulatory development, UAF needs to proceed cautiously and avoid committing itself to Department of Defense funded projects as well as classified research projects that may impose additional restrictions on the conduct of open science and subject faculty to additional criminal and administrative sanctions governing unclassified fundamental research.

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

M.	Motion on add a "pre-major" admission status to the baccalaureate degree, submitted by Curricular Affairs.

Ron Illingworth introduced the motion.  The motion is to establish a new admissions category--a pre-major degree status which would be associated with specific disciplines.  This comes as a recommendation from the Provost and addresses part of our concerns with student retention and admission at UAF.  It helps clarify a student's admission status with the university so that they would be connected to a department if they applied to a baccalaureate degree and did not meet those specific requirements.  The effective date is Fall 2003 because admission for Fall 2002 is already in process.  The motion passed unanimously.  

MOTION PASSED:
===========

The UAF Faculty Senate, upon recommendation of the Curricular Affairs Committee,  moves to add a "Pre-major" admissions status to the baccalaureate degree and to change the Baccalaureate Degree catalog description on page 11 of the current catalog as follows:

[[   ]] = Deletions
CAPS = Additions

Baccalaureate Degree (Bachelor's Degree)

1.	IF YOU DO NOT MEET THE BACCALAUREATE DEGREE ENTRANCE 
	REQUIREMENTS, YOU WILL BE PLACED INTO A PRE-MAJOR DEGREE 
	STATUS IN THE DISCIPLINE TO WHICH YOU HAVE APPLIED.  WITH 
	THE CONCURRENCE OF YOUR PRE-MAJOR ADVISOR, YOU MAY 
	LATER ENTER A BACCALAUREATE DEGREE PROGRAM AFTER 
	EARNING, WITH A C GRADE (2.0) AVERAGE OR HIGHER, 14 
	CREDITS AT THE 100 LEVEL OR ABOVE, OF WHICH NINE CREDITS 
	MUST SATISFY GENERAL BACCALAUREATE DEGREE 
	REQUIREMENTS.  YOUR PRE-MAJOR STATUS WILL BE REVIEWED 
	ANNUALLY.

	EFFECTIVE:  	Fall 2003

	RATIONALE:  	The pre-major status connects the student to 
		the degree to which they applied and requires the creation 
		of pre-major advisors who will provide the advising for 
		these students.  Additionally, many students currently 
		admitted to the Associate of Arts degree are, in fact, 
		baccalaureate degree seeking students and applied for 
		admissions as such.  Because they did not meet admissions 
		status for the baccalaureate degree, they were admitted 
		into an associate program without their prior knowledge or 
		concurrence.  Upon discovering this, some students have 
		opted not to attend UAF but to enroll as pre-major 
		students at another UA school.  Students admitted to pre-
		major status will receive advising from specifically 
		identified and trained pre-major advisors identified from 
		each school and college.  They will receive discipline-
		specific advising as well as recommendations to help them 
		meet the baccalaureate admissions requirements.  Student 
		pre-major status will be reviewed annually.

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

VII	Committee Reports 

	A.	Curricular Affairs - R. Illingworth

A report was attached to the agenda.  The following committee meeting report was distributed as a handout.  Ron Illingworth spoke about the committee's acceptance of the name change of admission status "undeclared" to "general studies."  

Minutes, Curricular Affairs Committee, 2 May 2002

Members Present:  Carol Barnhardt, Eduard Zilberkant, James Gladden, Ann Tremarello, Gayle Gregory, Wanda Martin, Gary Holton, Michael Hannigan, Ronald Illingworth, and David Woodall.

The meeting was audioconferenced as some members of the committee are at rural sites.

The committee focused attention on four issues: Additional Foreign Language credit, Sun Star Article, change of the admissions status of "Undeclared" to "General Studies", and creation of a new "pre-major" admissions status for all degrees.

The proposal to change the wording in the catalog re “bonus credit” for foreign languages was carried over until next year.  Any changes would not affect the current catalog as it is already in print and distributed so there was no perception of any urgency in addressing this issue.

It was brought to the attention of the committee that a recent Sun Star issue (23 April, 2002, p 3) contained an article relating to the creation of a new minor at UAF that was significantly in error.  The Sun Star was contacted to correct the article; however, they have already published their last issue for the year.

The Curricular Affairs committee voted unanimously to support the administration's proposal to change the name of the admissions status "Undeclared" to "General Studies".  We believe that this name more accurately reflects students' perceptions of their status and encourages, by the wording, exploration of varying disciplines as the students establish their degree goals.  We recommend an effective date of Spring 2003.  Implementation in the fall semester would be too disruptive as admissions for that semester is already underway and students have already been admitted.

After extensive discussion over two different meetings, the Curricular Affairs voted unanimously to approve a new admissions status: pre-major.  We will submit a motion to that effect at the next meeting of the Faculty Senate.  The effective date of the motion would be Fall 2003.  Pre-major status would be established for each baccalaureate degree and advising would be accomplished by the school or college within which the degree exists.  To provide this advising, schools and colleges will be required to identify and train pre-major advisors who will be responsible for the advising of the students in these categories.

Finally, the committee, on behalf of all previous Curricular Affairs committees, thanked Ann Tremarello for her thoughtful and expert guidance and input over the many years of her membership on the committee on the occasion of her impending retirement.

Respectfully submitted,
Ronald D. Illingworth, Chair  

	B.	Faculty Affairs - P. McRoy

The following report was distributed as a handout. 

2001-2002 Annual Report of the Faculty Affairs Committee

Committee Members and Affiliation:
Mike Davis, Rural Development, Bristol Bay Campus
Abel Bult, IAB
Joan Leguard, Philosophy & Humanities
Jennifer McBeath, SALARM
Peter McRoy (Chair), SFOS
Roger Smith (Ex-Officio), GI

The charge to the Faculty Affairs  Committee is to “review issues dealing with faculty prerogative and recommend policy changes to the Faculty Senate. Issues of prerogative include academic freedom, faculty ethics, research and creative activity, and legislative and fiscal issues that may impact faculty concerns at the university.” Over the past academic year  the committee dealt with the following issues and promulgated the appropriate motions:

1.	Classified Research 
Revisions/replacement of a draft policy submitted to the Senate by Norm Swazo concerning classified research at UAF was a  main activity of Faculty Affairs. The objective is to establish a policy for UAF to monitor and review classified and proprietary research proposals and contracts. To accomplish this the committee met with several administrators and faculty and solicited opinions  from the faculty at large. The university brought Ms. Julie Norris, Director of Sponsored Programs at MIT to campus for a day of informative discussions and presentations. Faculty Affairs has prepared a new draft policy and submitted this to the Senate for consideration (pending).

2.	Senate policy on academic appeals
This issue here is to formulate a policy on academic appeals other than grades and to revise the composition of the grade appeals committee. Motions to accomplish this were submitted to the Senate for consideration (pending).

3.	Emeritus status
The committee revised the UAF regulations on appointment of emeriti to be consistent with Regents Policy and Regulations. A motion was submitted to the Senate (pending).

4.	Master Plan Report
The Committee reviewed the new draft master plan for UAF and met with Master Planning Committee representatives on two occasions. Faculty Affairs, in addition to comments expressed by other faculty, had numerous criticisms of the new draft plan and had the sense that the plan was being pushed through the University on a schedule that did not allow adequate time for changes due to faculty review. Consequently, Faculty Affairs proposed a motion to the Senate that requested the Chancellor to delay the schedule to allow further review (passed Senate/declined by Chancellor).

5.	Senate representation for CES faculty
Dr. Bret Luick reported to the committee that the consolidation of the Cooperative Extension Service (CES now ACE) into the College of Rural Alaska resulted in the loss of traditional direct Faculty Senate membership from ACE. He sought assistance of Faculty Affairs Committee to find a way to reinstate its Senate representation. Dr. Luick will seek resolution of the problem internally in CRA with consultation with Faculty Affairs and the Senate Administration Committee. The issues was resolved within CRA with the assistance of the Senate.

6.	Resolution on Vice President for Research search process
The Committee responded to comments concerning the search process by the statewide administration for the candidates for Vice President for Research. We concluded that the search did not proceed according to normal practices of university governance and submitted a motion to the Senate that would remind President Hamilton that the faculty do indeed notice and will continue to criticize such actions (motion passed).

7.	 Review of Biosafety Policy
The committee reviewed the draft policy on Biohazardous Agents and Recombinant DNA. The committee offered the suggestion to the Biosafety Committee that a flow diagram of the approval process be included as part of the policy. A draft diagram was sent to Dr. Larry Duffy, Biosafety Committee Chair.

Continuing issues that were not resolved in 2001-02:

8.	 Early tenure
The Provost raised the question of the increasing number of early tenure appointments and requested a review by Faculty Affairs. The committee is gathering the background data from UAF and other universities to see if action is needed.

9.	  Spouse Appointment Policy
The issue is do we need a policy at UAF for a trailing spouse? Apparently, there never has been such a policy. Faculty Affairs made little progress on this issue during the year.

10.	Senate organization: Bylaw revision
The issue concerns the organization of the Faculty Senate and the order of doing business at its meetings.  Specifically, the perception is that most of the collegial exchange over policy and other business of the Senate occurs in the Administrative Committee meeting rather than on the floor of the Senate. Changes to this procedure will require a revision of the Senate Bylaws (Sec.3, Art V) and possibly a new method of doing business so as to more fully involve senators in discussions and issues at meetings. 

11.	Regulation on research misconduct
A draft of new regulations on research misconduct prepared by Drs. Swazo and Duffy was submitted to the University Counsel’s Office early in the academic year for review. The draft has been stuck in this office all year.

12.	UAF Budget process
Faculty Affairs continues to be interested in the process and procedures used to establish the UAF budget. Faculty Affairs seeks to have the Faculty Senate more involved in the university budget process.

13.	Parking: status and function of the advisory committee
Yes, parking, again. In response to questions about recent changes in parking on the campus the committee investigated the status of the Parking Advisory Committee. Apparently the existing committee now largely deals with appeals and there is no functional group that reviews changes in parking areas and regulations. This will be a future action item for Faculty Affairs.

Submitted by C.P. McRoy
3 May 2002

	C.	Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee – H. Eicken

A report was attached to the agenda.

	D.	Core Review - D. Schamel

The following report was distributed as a handout. 

Report of the Core Review Committee for 2001-02

Submitted by Douglas Schamel

Two main accomplishments this academic year include: 1) relaxing of requirements for Core science courses, and 2) acceptance of MATH 161 as a Core math course.  

The philosophy underlying "breadth" vs. "depth" science classes is quite reasonable.  Unfortunately, many students found themselves caught in a bind of beginning a "depth" sequence, but changing career goals in mid-stream.  Or, just as common, beginning enrolling in a "breadth" course, then becoming excited about science.  This was not an issue for transfer students; any science course with a laboratory would count for Core science credit.  Thus, the loosening of the rules pertaining to science courses at UAF should be a boon for our students.  The only real concern is adequate preparation to handle the "depth" courses.

A student may NOT receive credit for both MATH 161 and MATH 107X.  Why not?  The courses are far too similar.  The Core Review Committee has allowed students to waive MATH 107X, if they complete MATH 161 and petition to use this course in lieu of MATH 107X.  The new policy merely formalizes the unwritten policy, which opens this opportunity for ALL students.  

In addition, we recognized the need for assisting faculty unfamiliar with "O" and "W" courses.  We attempted to deal with this issue by: 1) passing a motion to establish a Writing-across-the-Curriculum faculty specialist, and 2) establishing specific guidelines for inclusion in course syllabi.

The Writing-across-the-Curriculum specialist will work with the Faculty Development Office to provide workshops on Writing Intensive courses, including effective means of establishing writing samples and "draft-comment-redraft".  This faculty member would also be available for individual consultation.

Inclusion of appropriate guidelines for "O" and/or "W" course-related material in syllabi will not only aid faculty in ensuring they meet the minimum requirements for the Core, it will also alert students to the fact that this course is, indeed, a Core course, and that there are specific parts of the grading policy that pertain to the Core. 

Looking ahead to 2002-03, I foresee the committee 1) monitoring progress in course syllabi (an important issue for continuing accreditation), 2) screening of "O" and "W" course offerings by department (for potential suggestions to increase these courses), and 3) examining the potential for using Core courses to meet other requirements (CSEM faculty wish to double-count Core science courses for science minors AND Core).

	E.	Curriculum Review - P. Pinney

The following report was submitted for the minutes.  

The Faculty Senate Curriculum Review Committee reviewed over 100 new courses, trial courses and changes to existing courses.  All but two requests were approved.  Those two came from Law Enforcement at Tanana Valley Campus and were sent back for further development and a review of how it might parallel other existing courses in other departments, particularly Justice.  TVC will be forwarding an A.A.S. in Law Enforcement next year.

Of the ten or so courses that the committee conditionally approved, members requested additional information for clarification.  For some applications, departments submitted forms with missing data.  In a few instances, the form itself was worded in such a way that the committee could not tell how many times the course could be taken for repeat credit.  The rest has missing syllabi or similar documentation. For all conditional reviews, the committee received the information and approved the changes.

Two new programs were forwarded on to the Curricular Affairs Committee for discussion after initial committee approval: Global Studies minor and International Studies Baccalaureate.  Those two demonstrated the strength of the review process as more questions and discussion provided for changes that made each proposal stronger.  I personally found the evolution of a program interesting as the proponents continued to add changes and opponents strengthened the request in pointing out weaknesses.  In this case, I would like to note that the student senate rep. to the committee added valuable input at both this committee level and then again in Curricular Affairs.

At year's end, the make up of the committee for next year is still to be determined.  Gary Holton has agreed to be the chair if the committee for next year.  I will be serving as President-Elect of the Faculty Senate and will be glad to assist in any way helpful to help the committee next year.

	F.	Developmental Studies - J. Weber

A report was attached to the agenda.

	G.	Faculty Appeals & Oversight - J. Moessner

A report was attached to the agenda.

	H.	Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement – 
D. McLean-Nelson

A report was attached to the agenda.

IX	Members' Comments/Questions 

John Bruder commented that it has been a long meeting.  Linda Curda wanted to thank Ann Tremarello and requested a standing ovation.  

Norm Swazo adjourned the 2001-2002 Senate.  There was a short break with the new member took their seats.  

X	2002-2003 Faculty Senate Members Take Their Seats

	A.	Roll Call of 2002-2003 Members   

	Members Present:		Members Absent:
	Bruder, J.    			Barnes, D.
	Bueler, E.				Barnhardt, C.
	Bult, A.				Berman, G.
	Chukwu, G.  			Box, M.
	Curda, L.      			Dinstel, R. 
	Duffy, L.     			Gladden, J.
	Hannigan, M.			
	Holton, G.      			Goering, G.	
	Illingworth, R. 			Gradinger, R.
	Leguard, J.  			
	Ma, J. 	    			Luick, B.
	McCarthy, P. 			McBeath, J.
	McRoy, P.				McLean-Nelson, D.
	Patil, S.				Morrison, J.
	Pinney, P.				Newberry, R.
	Schneider, W. (J. Anderson)	Odess, D.
	Weber, J.				Simmons, B.
	Zilberkant, E.			Whiteledge, T.
						Zhang, S. 

	B	President's Remarks - Godwin Chukwu

Godwin Chukwu welcomed everyone to the new senate.  We have spent a long time today discussing and debating issues that are very relevant to our course of stay.  These will be major topics of discussion.  One of the main items he would like to follow is to conduct meetings of the Senate at least once each semester from the rural campuses.  We need to get in touch with our colleagues and let them understand why we are here and discuss them our deliberations.  

XI	New Senate Business  

	A.	Motion to endorse 2002-2003 committee membership, submitted by Administrative Committee

The motion was approved with no objection.  A break was called to elect the standing committee chairs which are noted below.  

MOTION PASSED:
============

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to endorse the 2002-2003 committee membership as attached.

	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately

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

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

2002 -2003 UAF FACULTY SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

STANDING COMMITTEES

Curricular Affairs
	David Barnes, CSEM (03)
	Carol Barnhardt, SOEd. (03)
	James Gladden, CLA (03)
	Greg Goering, SOM (04)
	Michael Hannigan, CRA (04)
	Gary Holton, CLA (03)--Chair, Curriculum Review
	*Ron Illingworth, CRA (03), Chair
	Rainer Newberry, CSEM (04)
	William Schneider, CLA (04)
	Eduard Zilberkant, CLA (04)

Faculty Affairs
	Mark Box, CLA (04)
	Abel Bult, CSEM (03)
	Knut Kielland, CSEM (03)
	Joan Leguard, CLA (03)
	Bret Luick, CRA/ACE (04)
	Jenifer McBeath, SALRM (04)
	*Peter McRoy, SFOS (04), Chair
	Dan Odess, CLA (04)
	Shirish Patil, SME (04)
	Bret Simmons, SOM (04)

PERMANENT COMMITTEES

Core Review (Elected)
	John Heaton, Social Sciences, CLA (03)
	vacant, English, CLA (03)
	*Doug Schamel, Education (04), Convener
	Jin Brown, Communication, CLA (04)
	Jill Faudree, Math, CSEM (04)
	Rainer Newberry, CSEM, Sciences (04) 
	Mary Goodwin, Humanities, CLA (04)
	Paul McCarthy, Library
	Undergraduate Student

Developmental Studies Committee (Elected)
	Barbara Adams, Interior-Aleutians, CRA (03)
	Nancy Ayagarak, Kuskokwim, CRA (02)
	Patty Baldwin, RSS 
	John Bruder, Bristol Bay, CRA (03)
	Richard Carr, English, CLA (03)
	John Creed, Chukchi, CRA (04)
	Kathleen Gustafson, Math, CSEM (04)
	Cindy Hardy, TVC (04)
	Ron Illingworth, Devel. Studies, CRA (03)
	Gary Laursen, Sciences (03)
	Wanda Martin, Advising Center 
	Joe Mason, Northwest, CRA (04)
	*Jane Weber, TVC (04), Convener

Faculty Appeals & Oversight Committee (Elected)
	Gang Chen, SME (04)
	Larry Duffy, CSEM (03)
	Carol Gold, CLA (04)
	Brian Himelbloom, SFOS (04)
	Glenn Juday, SALRM (03)
	Oscar Kawagley, SOEd. (04)
	Santanu Khataniar, SME (03)
	Paul Layer, CSEM (04)
	Jerry Lipka, SOEd. (03)
	Julie Riley, CRA/ACE (03)
	Michael Schuldiner, CLA (03)
	Peter Stortz, CRA/ACE (03)
	SALRM (04)
	SFOS (03)
	SOM (03)
	SOM (04)

Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement 
	Abel Bult, CSEM (03)
	Gerald Berman, CLA (04)
	Linda Curda, CRA (04)
	Paul McCarthy, CSEM (04)
	*Deborah McLean-Nelson, SOEd. (04), Convener
	Joy Morrison, CLA (04)
	Channon Price, CSEM 
	Tom Robinson, SOM  
	Ann Wilson, CRA (03)
	Shunpu Zhang, CSEM (04)

Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee 
	Ed Bueler, CSEM (03)
	Abhijit Dandekar, SME (04)
	Mary Ehrlander, CLA (04)
	Rolf Gradinger, SFOS (04)
	Meriam Karlsson, SALRM (04)
	Zhongo (John) Ma, CSEM (04)
	Pamela McWherter, CLA (04)
	Christa Mulder, CSEM (04)
	Maribeth Murray, CLA (03)
	*Colin Read, SOM (03), Convener
	  Ex-Officio:  	Joe Kan, Graduate Dean.
			Paul McCarthy, Library Director
			University Registrar
			Graduate Student
			Graduate Student

OTHER:

UAF Governance Coordinating Committee
	Godwin Chukwu, President
	Pete Pinney, President-Elect

UAF Faculty Alliance Representatives
	Godwin Chukwu, President
	Pete Pinney, President-Elect
	Larry Duffy, Past-President

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

	B.	Motion to approve the 2002-2003 UAF Faculty Senate meeting calendar, submitted by Administrative Committee 

Godwin Chukwu noted that the meetings will start at 1:00 p.m. and be held in the Wood Center Carol Brown Ballroom.  Larry Duffy requested that public comments be held at the beginning of the meetings.  Abel Bult asked about holding the meeting in Butrovich building.  The motion to adopt the calendar was approved with no objection.

MOTION PASSED:
============

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to adopt the following calendar for its 2002-2003 meetings.

	EFFECTIVE:   	Immediately

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

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

				UAF FACULTY SENATE
					2002-2003
				  Calendar of Meetings

Mtg. # 	Date   	Day    	Time    	Type

110     	9/23/02 	Monday	1:00 p.m.	audioconference

111     	10/28/02 	Monday	1:00 p.m.	face-to-face 

112     	12/9/02 	Monday	1:00 p.m.	audioconference

113     	2/3/03	Monday	1:00 p.m.	audioconference

114   	3/3/03	Monday	1:00 p.m.	face-to-face

115    	4/7/03	Monday	1:00 p.m.	audioconference

116   	5/5/03	Monday	1:00 p.m.	face-to-face

Location:  Wood Center Carol Brown Ballroom 

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

	C.	Motion to authorize the Administrative Committee to act on behalf of the Senate during the summer months, submitted by Administrative Committee 

Godwin Chukwu indicated that sometimes there is business that has to be conducted during the summer and the whole Senate is not available.  This motion authorizes the Administrative Committee to act on behalf of the Senate during the summer.  Abel Bult asked if regular senate members would have voting rights.  Larry Duffy indicated that the Administrative Committee is defined as the chairs of the committees and regular senate members would not have voting rights unless a motion was made to give them a vote.  Pete Pinney indicated that anything that would happen in the Administrative Committee would come back to the Senate.  The motion was approved with no objection.  

MOTION PASSED:
============

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to authorize the Administrative Committee to act on behalf of the Senate on all matters within its purview which may arise until the Senate resumes deliberations in the Fall of 2002.  Senators will be kept informed of the Administrative Committee's meetings and will be encouraged to attend and participate in these meetings.

	EFFECTIVE:   	May 6, 2002

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

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

XII	Members' Comments/Questions

Ron Illingworth indicated that one item brought up by Norm Swazo that bothered him was the written comments on the bulletin board.  While he supports academic freedom and the freedom of speech at the university, he felt we needed to condemn the types of responses that can be associated with ethnic comments and things of that nature.  

Larry Duffy indicated that this is a legitimate disagreement on items that are very complicated.  Faculty Affairs will be charged with preparing a resolution condemning that type of act.  Linda Curda asked that a copy of any resolution be sent to Norm Swazo.  Larry Duffy asked that a copy be send to President Hamilton and the UAF administration.  

XIII	Adjournment

	The meeting was adjourned at 5:45 p.m.

	Tapes of this Faculty Senate meeting are in the Governance 
	Office, 312 Signers' Hall if anyone wishes to listen to the 
	complete tapes. 

	Submitted by Sheri Layral, Faculty Senate Secretary.