MINUTES
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #113
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2003
Wood Center Carol Brown Ballroom

I	The meeting was called to order by President Chukwu at 1:05 p.m.

	A.	ROLL CALL 
	
	Members Present:		Members Absent:
	Barnhardt, C.			Barnes, D.
	Berman, G.  			Box, M.
	Bruder, J.    			Bueler, E.
	Bult-Ito, A.   			Goering, G.
	Chukwu, G.  			Luick, B.
	Curda, L. (A. Wilson)  		Morrison, J.
	Dinstel, R.   			Schneider, W.
	Duffy, L. 				Simmons, B.
	Gladden, J.  			Whiteledge, T.
	Gradinger, R.			Zhang, S.
	Hannigan, M. 			
	Haugen, L. 
	Holton, G.      			OTHERS PRESENT:
	Illingworth, R. 			Gregory, G. 
	Leguard, J.  			Kan, J.
	Ma, Z.    				Layer, P. 
	McBeath, J.  			Layral, S.
	McCarthy, P. 			Lind, M.
	McRoy, P.				Martin, W.
	Newberry, R. 			Schamel, D.
	Odess, D. 				Schwartz, C.
	Patil, S. 				Thomas, K.
	Pinney, P.				Trabant, T.
	Weber, J.				
	Zilberkant, E.			

	NON-VOTING MEMBERS PRESENT:	NON-VOTING MEMBERS ABSENT:
	Miller, D. - President, ASUAF
	Andrews, B. -  GSO
	Ledlow, L.   - President, UAFSC
	Joseph, B.  - Dean, CRA
	Woodall, D. - Dean, CSEM (Larry Duffy)
	Slominski, R. - University Registrar

	B.	The minutes to Meeting #111 (October 28, 2002) and Meeting #112 (December 9, 2002) were approved with a correction to the minutes of meeting #111.  Abel Bult-Ito made a correction to the motion on tuition to remove the brackets from the faculty and staff numbers.

	C.	The agenda was approved as distributed via e-mail with the addition of a guest speaker, Joe Kan under item III. D. and deletion of item VI. B, Motion to approve a Certificate and A.A.S. in Educator: Paraprofessional.

II	Status of Chancellor's Office Actions
	A.	Motions approved: 
		1.	Motion to amend Section 3 (Article V: 
			Committees, Permanent) of the Bylaws 
			pertaining to the Developmental Studies 
			Committee membership.
		2.	Motion to delete the B.A. in Human Services.
		3.	Motion to approve a Minor in Environmental 
			Politics.
		4.	Motion to approve a B.S. in Computer 
			Engineering.
		5.	Motion to amend the A.A.S. degree 
			requirements.
		6.	Motion to amend the Certificate program 
			requirements.
		7.	Motion to delete the M.A.T., Secondary.
		8.	Motion to delete the M.A.T., Secondary 
			Licensed Teachers.
	B.	Motions pending:  none

III	A.	Remarks by Chancellor Marshall Lind - 

Chancellor Lind commented on the report from Alex Hill on Information Technology.  It is a good report and with many recommendations and suggestions.  UAF will do their best to address some of the issues.  

This week the UA Academy will be held in Anchorage.  It will cover a variety of topics:  education, natural resources, health and human services, arts & humanities, rural Alaska.  A large number of UAF faculty are making presentations.  

A national search is underway for the position of Dean of the Graduate School and Vice Provost for Instructional Affairs.  The evaluation of Provost Reichardt is ongoing.  Eduard Zilberkant is the chair.  The review is on track.  

Provost Reichardt will be working with a number of deans to review UAF's Academic Development Plan.  

Chancellor Lind indicated that UAF is looking at continued growth in enrollment.  The system as a whole was up 9%; UAF was up 11%.  Numbers from a year ago are up.  He feels quite good about enrollment.

Budget:  this year brings new legislators.  The University will be working with the Governor and legislature to ask for an increase in the UA budget.  During his campaign, Governor Murkowski indicated that he would support a 5% increase.  There are many situations that will make our budget tight.  Fixed costs are going up.  We need to look at how to make costs fit within existing dollars.  The Chancellor will be working closely with officers of this body.  

Larry Duffy asked that some of CSEM faculty, in particular, John Keller and Charlie Mayer, be part of the committee that will review the IT report.  Chancellor Lind indicated that comments on the report could be directed to Provost Reichardt.

	B.	Dr. Corene Schwartz, Athletic Director

Chancellor Lind introduced the new Athletic Director, Corene Schwartz.  She indicated that she would like to reconnect athletics with all parts of campus.  Last semester there were 93 student athletics.  Nine of those students made the Chancellor's list; 20 made the Dean's list.    There is a pretty high profile in student athletics and she would like to maintain a high academic level.  One thing Athletics will be doing is to develop a mentoring system with department and colleges.  

Peter McRoy asked about the percentage of male and female athletics.  Dr. Schwartz indicated that it closely reflected the percentages of the student body.  

	C.	Tonya Trabant, Career Services

Each year Career Services sponsors the Career Expo event.  During last year's event participation included 70 employers and 1150 attendees.  Tonya Trabant is open to suggestions to making  information on this year's Career Expo available.  Their survey shows that networking is the number one way of getting a job.  Internships; on-campus recruiting; employee referrals; career/job fairs; and faculty contacts are other effective recruiting tools.  Please encourage students to attend the Career Expo, especially students interested in science and research.  Career Services staff are willing to come into classes to make presentations.  College job recruiting is down this year, so it is important to encourage students to participate in all events scheduled.  

	D.	Joe Kan, Dean, Graduate School

Joe Kan, Dean of the Graduate School, spoke about the Joint Ph.D. model.  UAF needs to increase the number of Ph.D. granted to increase our Carnegie status as a Division I Research University.  

In order to do that without additional resources we need to look at collaborate efforts with UAA.  The next level up is the Joint Ph.D.  The difference between the collaborate program and a joint program is that the student in a collaborate program is a UAF student--they may live and work at UAA or UAS, but they are registered as a UAF student.  This works well when there is not a field of study at the other campus.  However, when there is a field of study at the other campus that doesn't work.  An example is Psychology.  

Information on the draft Guidelines for Developing UA Joint Doctoral Programs is posted on the web.  The three UA provosts have looked at the draft.  This draft is still in the Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee.  Joe Kan hopes to have input from them and to have a workable model for the Senate.  UAF will also need to have the support of the other MAU Senate groups.  

IV	A.	Rural Campus comments 

Pete Pinney opened the discussion from the Bristol Bay Campus in Dillingham.  He stated that the Rural Development faculty want to continue the dialogue on open space dedicated to Alaska Native heritage that was started with the resolution passed by the Senate last year.  

Rick Caufield's paper on identifying Alaska Natives as doctorate candidates follows the suggestions from a New Zealand program that promoted the success of 500 Maori Ph.D.'s.

The CRA registrars communicate regularly to coordinate waitlists during registration.  With the addition of UAS and UAA into that mix of statewide course offerings, the last one to touch the record becomes the record of where the student is.  That complicates how tuition is calculated and sent to the different departments.  As we become more and more involved in cross-regional offerings, more communication will have to take place.

Other items include opening opportunities for video conferencing.  It is available in Nome, Bethel, Dillingham and the main campus.  

Lee Haugen indicated that Nome has been involved in audio conference courses and distance delivery for some time and, therefore, faculty have developed strategies for making the experience successful for students and instructors.  All the courses she teaches (graduate and one undergraduate) are distance delivery.  It took some effort to learn the "tools" (computer, phone, and email) necessary for enhancing the audio only experience, but the courses are perceived as very effective by the students.  John Bruder indicated that their chemistry position has been funded for next year.  

Pete Pinney encouraged faculty to respond to Alex Hill's Information Technology (IT) report.  

Bernice Joseph commented on the videoconference equipment.  Rural campuses are getting training on HorizonLive.  She thanked the faculty for their effort on the approval of courses and working with the rural report.  She also indicated that CRA is working with Alaska Cooperative Extension and school districts throughout the state on many collaborative efforts.  

	B.	Public Comments/Questions - none

V	Governance Reports

	A.	President-Elect's Comments - P. Pinney

The ad hoc committee is still considering the latest draft on classified research.  They hope to have a draft to the Faculty Affairs Committee soon.  

	B.	President's Comments - G. Chukwu

Godwin Chukwu commented on the search committee of the Dean of the Graduate School and Vice Provost for Instructional Affairs.  An advertisement has been submitted to the Chronicle of High Education.  He also noted that the review of Provost Reichardt is ongoing.

Nominations for the Outstanding Senator of the Year Award are now open and due March 1, 2003.  A review committee will be elected at the March 3rd meeting.  Nominations for the President-elect position will open in March and close with an election at the April 7th meeting.  Godwin Chukwu stated that if anyone is interested in becoming more involved with the Faculty Senate the person should consider running for this position.  

He also thanked Bernice Joseph for her comments on the Faculty Senate newsletter.  

A Safety Awareness committee is being established and he will be serving on that committee.  

	C.	Staff Council - L. Ledlow

Larry Ledlow briefly touched on a number of items.  Staff are beginning to feel the pinch of a significant increase in health care costs.  Statewide is relatively proactive in engaging staff to reevaluate our current plan.  Staff are wondering how sincere the university is in addressing equitable compensation.  A couple of years ago Statewide initiated a reclassification project.  They stated that a study of compensation could not be undertaken until a more formal job reclassification was in place.  That project is in place and is just about completed.  At the December Board of Regents meeting it was stated that a reevaluation of compensation was not planned after the reclassification is completed. 

Last fall semester, Larry Ledlow reported on the possibility of a reduction in force (RIF) at the GI/Alaska SAR facility.  The GI HR director has notified five staff that their contracts would not be renewed after June.  The main concern of Staff Council is how the GI is developing a plan to deal with the RIF.  Staff rights are a concern.  As part of assistance in seeking new employment, they would like for the RIF staff to have the first opportunity to apply for other jobs.  It currently exists only for GI positions, but does not apply for other campus jobs.  

Staff Council continues to engage the OMA and other groups to develop a committee on diversity and tolerance.  The committee's charter is to address issues of discrimination, multi-culturalism, freedom of speech, and basic human rights.  This started as a result of the motion to amend the BOR policy on sexual orientation.  Staff Alliance may be looking at forming a committee at the statewide level as well.  

	D.	ASUAF - D. Miller

Derek Miller indicated that ASUAF is off to a roaring start.  At the beginning of the semester they held a student government workshop where they established goals and objectives they hope to accomplish this semester.  Five goals they are currently working on include:    

1)  They would like to get 1,000 students voting on their next on-line student government elections.  Last semester they did their first on-line election and were very happy with it.  The last election they had 300 voters participate, which is about 7.5% of the student body. They would like to triple that for the next election.  
2)  They hope to put on the first annual ASUAF Summit.  It will be a student oriented leadership program to establish a vision for the student body.  They have a leadership speaker from San Diego.  It should be a good day for all students, student groups, clubs, residence hall associations, society, etc.  
3)  The third goal is to get 50% of the university committees/boards filled with students.  We will work toward 90-100% next year.  
4)  Legislative advocacy.  A group met with President Hamilton in regards to what our message will be once with go down to Juneau and get a chance to talk with legislators and advocate for the University.  The Board budget request is for an increase of $13.6 million for the capital budget; the Governor agreed to support a 5% increase.  That 5% equals about $6 million.  We are hoping to get that last percentage.  The theme of this year's campaign is:  "It's Working! " 
5) For the first time in eight years ASUAF will hold its first trust fund board meeting.  When ASUAF sold some of its assets it set up a separate trust fund which they hope to use for scholarships for students.  

Derek Miller will be attending the UA Academy in Anchorage on Tuesday and Wednesday.  

	GSO - Ben Andrews

The Graduate Student Organization has been reorganization and Ben Andrews will be attending the Senate meetings.  He spoke about having graduate students on various committees and the search committee for the new Dean of the Graduate School.  Graduate students will be looking at the cost and possibly better coverage of health care for graduate students.  

	E. 	Eva Kopacz, Faculty Liaison

Eva Kopacz did not attend the meeting.  

VI	New Business

A.	Motion on Low Grade Reports, submitted by Curricular Affairs 

Ron Illingworth indicated that the motion is to change the low grade report name to Freshman Progress Report.  It will reflect all grades for all freshmen.  Dan Odess stated that this would place a heavy administrative burden on faculty teaching large introductory courses.  Ron Illingworth spoke about reports on the benefits to students to know where they are in terms of how they are doing in courses.  Gerry Berman expressed his concern about how early the reports were due.  Ron Illingworth indicated there was no change in the date they are due, which is prior to the withdrawal date.  The motion passed unanimously.

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to change the Low Grade Report system for freshmen students to Freshmen Progress Reports, in which all freshman grades would be reported.   

	EFFECTIVE:  	Fall 2003

	RATIONALE:    	The eight faculty and other staff members of 
		the Early Warning Program recommended this change as 
		part of an overall effort to provide personal intervention 
		in a more positive assistance approach rather than what 
		might appear as punitive.  Specific issues forwarded by 
		this group include:

		  *	All faculty and instructors teaching classes with 
			freshmen enrolled should submit Freshmen Progress 
			Reports for all freshmen, not just for those who 
			are doing poorly
		  *	This switch from Low Grade Reports to Freshmen 
			Progress Reports will assist all freshmen with the 
			transition into college and provide an additional 
			connection between students and faculty
		  *	To make the process expedient, timely, and 
			user-friendly, Freshmen Progress Reports should 
			be available for faculty and instructors to submit 
			electronically
		  *	Students should be able to access their individual 
			progress report electronically, as well as continued 
			mailings to students at their current local address
		  *	Freshmen Progress Reports need to be formatted 
			in a clear and concise manner to eliminate 
			extraneous information.
		  *	The report will be provided to students at all UAF 
			campuses.

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

B.	Motion to approve a Certificate and A.A.S. in Educator:  Paraprofessional, submitted by Curricular Affairs 

This item was pulled from the agenda.  

C.	Motion to amend the baccalaureate Core Curriculum, submitted by Core Review 

Doug Schamel indicated that the intent of this motion is to allow students to use the Core courses a minimum requirement for all degrees.  This would allow science and math courses to be used by students to meet their degree requirements for the baccalaureate core, the B.S. requirements, and/or their major requirements.  The motion passed unanimously.  

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the Baccalaureate Core Curriculum (page 29 of the 2002-03 catalog) as follows:  

[[  ]]  = Deletion
CAPS = Addition

BACCALAUREATE CORE

[[Courses used to meet core requirements may not be used to meet any other requirements for a degree.]]  

COURSES USED TO MEET A SCIENCE OR MATHEMATICS CORE REQUIREMENT MAY ALSO BE USED TO SATISFY OTHER DEGREE REQUIREMENTS.  OTHER CORE COURSES MAY NOT BE USED TO MEET ANY OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR A DEGREE.

	EFFECTIVE:  	Fall 2003

	RATIONALE: 	
		(1) This motion is a simplified version of one unanimously 
		approved by the Dean’s council of CSEM in December 2002 
		for consideration by the Faculty Senate. The wording of 
		this simplified version was suggested and approved by 
		Ms. Gayle Gregory, Graduation Manager.  This motion 
		has received the unanimous approval of the Faculty 
		Senate’s Core Review Committee.

		(2) In effect, this policy will simply formalize current 
		degree requirements.  For example, the B.S. Chemistry 
		requirements start off:
		"1. Complete the general university requirements. (As 
		part of the core curriculum requirements, complete 
		Math 200X; Phys 103X and Phys 104X or Phys 211X 
		and Phys 212X)."

		Degree requirements for all other B.S. and B.A. degrees 
		in sciences have similar wording to accomplish the same 
		task.

		(3) It was the intention of the science core committee 
		(at the invention of the current UAF Core) that the 
		science and math core requirements serve as 'minimum', 
		not as stand-alone requirements.  We simply wish to 
		ensure that all baccalaureate students graduate with 
		at least one college-level math and 2 college-level
		science courses.  It was expected that in many cases
		these minimum courses were used to satisfy other 
		requirements.  The proposed wording simply clarifies 
		the situation. 

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

D.	Motion to approve adding ENGL 211X or 213X as a prerequisite for all Writing Intensive courses, submitted by Core Review 

Doug Schamel indicated that the committee thought this action had been done a few year ago, but found it hadn't been formally adopted by the Senate.  This action is consistent with past Senate action, especially the one recommending that all students complete all Core requirements before they enter their junior year.  A big concern of the committee is that some students take "O" courses without communications as a prerequisite and some take writing intensive ("W") courses without adequate background in writing skills.  This motion would help guarantee that student have the basic skills before taking the advanced writing intensive courses.  He asked for a friendly amendment to insert the word "automatically" before the word "add."  This fall the committee went through a large amount of paperwork this fall to get permission from faculty to add the appropriate prerequisites.  Joan Leguard objected to the amendment.  Larry Duffy spoke against the motion and talked about sequencing of courses. 

Joan Leguard spoke against adding the 200-level English courses as a prerequisite for the writing intensive courses.  The department sequencing may not accommodate all students having the sophomore level English courses prior to the 300-level "W" courses.  Doug Schamel questioned the need for a sophomore level English core requirement if we are not going to use it.  Rainer Newberry stated that English 211/213 should build upon a foundation and the "W" courses should build upon writing skills learned in English 211/213.  The amendment passed with a vote of 16 yes and 3 nays.

Ron Illingworth said he agreed with why we have "W" & "O" courses, however, there is a question on implementation and the impact on students and scheduling.  He then moved to table the motion until the next Senate meeting and send it back to the Core Committee and to the Curricular Affairs Committee to discuss the actual implementation.  The motion to table passed with a vote of 13 yes and 7 nays.  

MOTION TABLED:
============

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to automatically add ENGL 211X or ENGL 213X as a prerequisite for all "W" courses.

	EFFECTIVE:  	2003-04 academic year.

		Course syllabi for "W" courses will include this course as 
		a prerequisite beginning Fall 2003.  This prerequisite 
		will be added to all catalog course descriptions for the 
		2004-05 catalog.  

	RATIONALE:  	"W" courses are intended to allow students 
		to hone their writing skills within their chosen discipline.  
		ENGL 211X/213X provides "instruction in critical reading 
		and argumentative writing".  These are foundation 
		courses for Written Intensive courses, and should be 
		treated as such.  Successful completion of ENGL 211X/ 
		213X should ensure that students are fully prepared 
		meet the writing requirements of the advanced courses. 

		Past Senate action 1) added ENGL 111X as a prerequisite 
		for "W" courses, AND 2) adopted the position that all Core 
		requirements should be completed before the junior year.  
		This motion is consistent with past Senate actions.

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

E.	Motion to approve the Unit Criteria for the School of Mineral Engineering, submitted by the Ad Hoc Committee on Unit Criteria 

Gary Holton stated that these unit criteria were a model for adding specific unit criteria to existing UAF criteria.  With no further discussion, the motion passed unanimously.  

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve the Unit Criteria for the School of Mineral Engineering (SME).  

        EFFECTIVE:      Immediately
		Upon Chancellor Approval

	RATIONALE:      The committee assessed the unit criteria 
		submitted by the School of Mineral Engineering (SME). 
		With some minor changes, agreed upon by the department 
		representative, Godwin Chukwu, the unit criteria were 
 		found to be consistent with UAF guidelines.

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

UAF REGULATIONS FOR THE EVALUATION OF FACULTY:
INITIAL APPOINTMENT, PERIODIC REVIEW, RE-APPOINTMENT,
PROMOTION, AND TENURE

AND
SCHOOL OF MINERAL ENGINEERING UNIT CRITERIA
STANDARDS AND INDICES

THE FOLLOWING IS AN ADAPTATION OF UAF AND REGENTS CRITERIA FOR PROMOTION AND TENURE, SPECIFICALLY DEVELOPED FOR USE IN EVALUATING THE FACULTY IN THE SCHOOL OF MINERAL ENGINEERING.  ITEMS IN BOLDFACE ITALICS ARE THOSE SPECIFICALLY ADDED OR EMPHASIZED BECAUSE OF THEIR RELEVANCE TO THE SCHOOL OF MINERAL ENGINEERING FACULTY, AND BECAUSE THEY ARE ADDITIONS TO AND CLARIFICATION OF UAF REGULATIONS.  THESE UNIT CRITERIA ARE FOR USE IN THE ANNUAL EVALUATION OF FACULTY AS WELL.

CHAPTER I.

PURVIEW

The University of Alaska Fairbanks document, “Faculty Appointment and Evaluation Policies,” supplements the Board of Regents (BOR) policies and describes the purpose, conditions, eligibility, and other specifications relating to the evaluation of faculty at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF).  Contained herein are regulations and procedures to guide the evaluation processes and to identify the bodies of review appropriate for the university.

The university, through the UAF Faculty Senate, may change or amend these regulations and procedures from time to time and will provide adequate notice in making changes and amendments.

These regulations shall apply to all of the units within the University of Alaska Fairbanks, except in so far as extant collective bargaining agreements apply otherwise.

The provost is responsible for coordination and implementation of matters relating to procedures stated herein.

CHAPTER II

INITIAL APPOINTMENT OF FACULTY

A.	Criteria for Initial Appointment
Minimum degree, experience and performance requirements are set forth in "UAF Faculty Appointment and Evaluation Policies," Chapter IV.  Exceptions to these requirements for initial placement in academic rank or special academic rank positions shall be submitted to the chancellor or chancellor’s designee for approval prior to a final selection decision.

B.	Academic Titles
Academic titles must reflect the discipline in which the faculty are appointed.

C.	Process for Appointment of Faculty with Academic Rank
Deans of schools and colleges, and directors when appropriate, in conjunction with the faculty in a unit, shall observe procedures for advertisement, review, and selection of candidates to fill any vacant faculty position. These procedures are set by UAF Human Resources and the Campus Diversity and Compliance (AA/EEO) office and shall provide for participation in hiring by faculty and administrators as a unit.

D.	Process for Appointment of Faculty with Special Academic Rank
Deans and/or directors, in conjunction with the faculty in a unit, shall establish procedures for advertisement, review, and selection of candidates to fill any faculty positions as they become available.  Such procedures shall be consistent with the university’s stated AA/EEO policies and shall provide for participation in hiring by faculty and administrators in the unit.  

E.	Following the Selection Process
The dean or director shall appoint the new faculty member and advise him/her of the conditions, benefits, and obligations of the position.  If the appointment is to be at the professor level, the dean/director must first obtain the concurrence of the chancellor or chancellor’s designee.

F.	Letter of Appointment
The initial letter of appointment shall specify the nature of the assignment, the percentage emphasis that is to be placed on each of the parts of the faculty responsibility, mandatory year of tenure review, and any special conditions relating to the appointment.

This letter of appointment establishes the nature of the position and, while the percentage of emphasis for each part may vary with each workload distribution as specified in the annual workload agreement document, the part(s) defining the position may not.  

CHAPTER III.

EVALUATION OF FACULTY FOR TENURE/PROMOTION

A.	General Criteria  
Criteria as outlined in "UAF Faculty Appointment and Evaluation Policies," Chapter IV, AND SME UNIT CRITERIA, STANDARDS AND INDICES, evaluators may consider, but shall not be limited to, whichever of the following are appropriate to the faculty member’s professional obligation:  mastery of subject matter; effectiveness in teaching; achievement in research, scholarly, and creative activity; effectiveness of public service; effectiveness of university service; demonstration of professional development and quality of total contribution to the university.

For purposes of evaluation at UAF, the total contribution to the university and activity in the areas outlined above will be defined by relevant activity and demonstrated competence from the following areas: 1) effectiveness in teaching; 2) achievement in scholarly activity; and 3) effectiveness of service.

Bipartite Faculty  
Bipartite faculty are regular academic rank faculty who fill positions that are designated as performing two of the three parts of the university’s tripartite responsibility.

The dean or director of the relevant college/school shall determine which of the criteria defined above apply to these faculty.

Bipartite faculty may voluntarily engage in a tripartite function, but they will not be required to do so as a condition for evaluation, promotion, or tenure.

B.	Criteria for Instruction
A central function of the university is instruction of students in formal courses and supervised study. Teaching includes those activities directly related to the formal and informal transmission of appropriate skills and knowledge to students.  The nature of instruction will vary for each faculty member, depending upon workload distribution and the particular teaching mission of the unit.  Instruction includes actual contact in classroom, correspondence or electronic delivery methods, laboratory or field and preparatory activities, such as preparing for lectures, setting up demonstrations, and preparing for laboratory experiments, as well as individual/independent study, tutorial sessions, evaluations, correcting papers, and determining grades.  Other aspects of teaching and instruction extend to undergraduate and graduate academic advising and counseling, training graduate students and serving on their graduate committees, particularly as their major advisor, curriculum development, and academic recruiting and retention activities. 

1.	Effectiveness in Teaching 
Evidence of excellence in teaching may be demonstrated through, but not limited to, evidence of the various characteristics that define effective teachers. Effective teachers

a.	are highly organized, plan carefully, use class time efficiently, have clear objectives, have high expectations for students;

b.	express positive regard for students, develop good rapport with students, show interest/enthusiasm for the subject;

c.	emphasize and encourage student participation, ask questions, frequently monitor student participation for student learning and teacher effectiveness, are sensitive to student diversity;

d.	emphasize regular feedback to students and reward student learning success;

e.	demonstrate content mastery, discuss current information and divergent points of view, relate topics to other disciplines, deliver material at the appropriate level;

f.	regularly develop new courses, workshops and seminars and use a variety of methods of instructional delivery and instructional design;

g.	may receive prizes and awards for excellence in teaching.

H.	DISSEMINATE NEW IDEAS TO THE STUDENTS RESULTING FROM RESEARCH AND OTHER ENGINEERING ACTIVITIES, SUCH AS CONSULTING AND SERVICE ON REVIEW PANELS;

I.  	INVOLVE STUDENTS, UNDERGRADUATES AS WELL AS GRADUATES, IN QUALITY RESEARCH ACTIVITIES.

J.	 ENGAGE IN ADVISING AND MENTORING STUDENTS.

2.	Components of Evaluation
Effectiveness in teaching will be evaluated through information on formal and informal teaching, course and curriculum material, recruiting and advising, training/guiding graduate students, etc., provided by:

a.	systematic student ratings, i.e. student opinion of instruction summary forms,

and at least two of the following:

b.	narrative self-evaluation, WHICH DOCUMENTS EFFORTS TO IMPROVE INSTRUCTIONAL PERFORMANCE.

c.	peer/department chair classroom/LABORATORY observation(s),

d.	peer/department chair evaluation of course materials.

SPECIFIC SME CRITERIA FOR TEACHING PERFORMANCE BEFORE APPOINTMENT OR PROMOTION TO:

A.	ASSISTANT PROFESSOR: EVIDENCE OF TEACHING ABILITY AND A COMMITMENT TO QUALITY TEACHING AND EVIDENCE OF CONTINUED IMPROVEMENT.

 B.	ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR: THE RECORD MUST SHOW THAT THE MATERIAL TAUGHT IS RELEVANT AND THAT THE PRESENTATIONS STIMULATE THE LEARNING PROCESS. EVIDENCE OF THE EXPECTED QUALITY OF INSTRUCTIONAL PERFORMANCE MAY INCLUDE (BUT NOT LIMITED TO) COURSE AND/OR CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT, NOVEL APPROACHES TO INSTRUCTION, EFFECTIVE GUIDING AND MENTORING OF STUDENTS, AND EFFECTIVE CLASSROOM TEACHING PERFORMANCE. THERE MUST BE EVIDENCE OF SUPERVISION OF GRADUATE STUDENT RESEARCH (AS A MAJOR SUPERVISOR OR CO-SUPERVISOR) LEADING TO SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF THE DEGREE PROGRAM.

C.	PROFESSOR: SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM ARE EXPECTED.  THESE INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO CONTRIBUTIONS TO MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS IN COURSE AND/OR CURRICULUM OFFERINGS, UPGRADING OF INSTRUCTIONAL FACILITIES, ABILITY TO MOTIVATE AND/OR INSPIRE STUDENTS, AND TRAINING OF GRADUATE STUDENTS LEADING TO SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF THEIR DEGREE PROGRAM (S). 

C.	Criteria for Research, Scholarly, and Creative Activity  
Inquiry and originality are central functions of a land grant/sea grant/space grant university and all faculty with a research component in their assignment must remain active as scholars.  Consequently, faculty are expected to conduct research or engage in other scholarly or creative pursuits that are appropriate to the mission of their unit, and equally important, results of their work must be disseminated through media appropriate to their discipline.  Furthermore, it is important to emphasize the distinction between routine production and creative excellence as evaluated by an individual's peers at the University of Alaska and elsewhere.

1.	Achievement in Research, Scholarly and Creative Activity
Whatever the contribution, research, scholarly or creative activities must have one or more of the following characteristics:

a.	They must occur in a public forum.
b.	They must be evaluated by appropriate peers.
c.	They must be evaluated by peers external to this institution so as to allow an objective judgment.

d.	They must be judged to make a contribution.

2.	Components of Research, Scholarly and Creative Activity
Evidence of excellence in research, scholarly, and creative activity may be demonstrated through, but not limited to:

a.	Books, reviews, monographs, bulletins, articles, proceedings and other scholarly works published by reputable journals, scholarly presses, and publishing houses that accept works only after rigorous review and approval by peers in the discipline.

b.	Competitive grants and contracts to finance the development of ideas, these grants and contracts being subject to rigorous peer review and approval.

c.	Presentation of research papers before learned societies that accept papers only after rigorous review and approval by peers.

d.	Exhibitions of art work at galleries, selection for these exhibitions being based on rigorous review and approval by juries, recognized artists, or critics.

e.	Performances in recitals or productions, selection for these performances being based on stringent auditions and approval by appropriate judges.

f.	Editing or refereeing articles or proposals for professional journals or organizations.

g.	Scholarly reviews of publications, art works and performance of the candidate.

h.	Citations of research in scholarly publications.

i.	Published abstracts of research papers.

j.	Reprints or quotations of publications, reproductions of art works, and descriptions of interpretations in the performing arts, these materials appearing in reputable works of the discipline.

k.	Prizes and awards for excellence of scholarship.

l.	Awards of special fellowships for research or artistic activities or selection of tours of duty at special institutes for advanced study.

m.	Development of processes or instruments useful in solving problems, such as computer programs and systems for the processing of data, genetic plant and animal material, and where appropriate obtaining patents and/or copyrights for said development.

SPECIFIC CRITERIA FOR RESEARCH PERFORMANCE BEFORE PROMOTION OR APPOINTMENT TO:

A. ASSISTANT PROFESSOR: EVIDENCE OF THE ABILITY TO ESTABLISH A VIABLE RESEARCH PROGRAM IN THE AREA OF SPECIALIZATION.

B. ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR: MUST HAVE ESTABLISHED AN APPROPRIATE RESEARCH PROGRAM WHICH PRODUCES SATISFACTORY PUBLICATIONS IN REFEREED PROFESSIONAL JOURNALS AND PRESENTED RESEARCH RESULTS AT PROFESSIONAL MEETINGS.  THE SUBMISSION OF RESEARCH PROPOSALS, THE COMPLETION OF CONTRACT RESEARCH REPORTS, AND PUBLICATION IN CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS CONSTITUTE SUPPLEMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT THE RESEARCH PROGRAM IS OF HIGH QUALITY.  MUST SHOW EVIDENCE OF SUSTAINED RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY AND PUBLICATION. THE FACULTY MEMBER MUST SHOW INDEPENDENCE AND LEADERSHIP BY THE CREATION OF RESEARCH IDEAS THAT INVOLVE STUDENTS.

C. PROFESSOR: THE RESEARCH PROGRAM SHOULD HAVE PRODUCED SUFFICIENT PUBLICATION IN THE REFEREED PROFESSIONAL LITERATURE, AND THERE SHOULD BE A RECORD OF STUDENT INVOLVEMENT.  THE PUBLICATIONS SHOULD BE OF SUFFICIENT QUALITY AND QUANTITY TO DEMONSTRATE THE EXISTENCE OF AN ON-GOING, PROFESSIONAL, INDEPENDENT RESEARCH PROGRAM.  A NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL REPUTATION (AS DEMONSTRATED BY PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES OR PRESENTATIONS AT MEETINGS AND DOCUMENTED OPINIONS OF OTHER ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS IN THE FIELD) IS EXPECTED. THERE SHOULD BE A RECORD OF SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF GRADUATE WORK BY HIS OR HER STUDENTS. THERE SHOULD BE DEMONSTRATED EVIDENCE OF EXTERNAL RESEARCH FUNDING.

D.	Criteria for Public and University Service
Public service is intrinsic to the land grant/sea grant/space grant tradition, and is a fundamental part of the university’s obligation to the people of its state.  In this tradition, faculty providing their professional expertise for the benefit of the university’s external constituency, free of charge, is identified as “public service.”  The tradition of the university itself provides that its faculty assumes a collegial obligation for the internal functioning of the institution; such service is identified as “university service.”

1.	Public Service 
Public service is the application of teaching, research, and other scholarly and creative activity to constituencies outside the University of Alaska Fairbanks.  It includes all activities which extend the faculty member’s professional, academic, or leadership competence to these constituencies.  It can be instructional, collaborative, or consultative in nature and is related to the faculty member’s discipline or other publicly recognized expertise.  Public service may be systematic activity that involves planning with clientele and delivery of information on a continuing, programmatic basis.  It may also be informal, individual, professional contributions to the community or to one’s discipline, or other activities in furtherance of the goals and mission of the university and its units. Such service may occur on a periodic or limited-term basis.  Examples include, but are not limited to:

a.	Providing information services to adults or youth.

b.	Service on or to government or public committees.

c.	Service on accrediting bodies.

d.	Active participation in professional organizations.

e.	Active participation in discipline-oriented service organizations.

f.	Consulting.

g.	Prizes and awards for excellence in public service.

h.	Leadership of or presentations at workshops, conferences, or public meetings.

i.	Training and facilitating.

j.	Radio and TV programs, newspaper articles and columns, publications, newsletters, films, computer applications, teleconferences and other educational media. 

k.	Judging and similar educational assistance at science fairs, state fairs, and speech, drama, literary, and similar competitions.

2.	University Service
University service includes those activities involving faculty members in the governance, administration, and other internal affairs of the university, its colleges, schools, and institutes.  It includes non-instructional work with students and their organizations.  Examples of such activity include, but are not limited to:

a.	Service on university, college, school, institute, or departmental committees or governing bodies.

b.	Consultative work in support of university functions, such as expert assistance for specific projects.

c.	Service as department chair or term-limited and part-time assignment as assistant/associate dean in a college/school.

d.	Participation in accreditation reviews.
   
e.	Service on collective bargaining unit committees or elected office.

f.	Service in support of student organizations and activities.

g.	Academic support services such as library and museum programs.

h.	Assisting other faculty or units with curriculum planning and delivery of instruction, such as serving as guest lecturer.

i.	Mentoring.

j.	Prizes and awards for excellence in university service.

K.	 PARTICIPATION IN STUDENT RECRUITING.

3.	Evaluation of Service
Each individual faculty member’s proportionate responsibility in service shall be reflected in annual workload agreements. In formulating criteria, standards and indices for evaluation, promotion, and tenure, individual units should include examples of service activities and measures for evaluation appropriate for that unit. Excellence in public and university service may be demonstrated through, e.g., appropriate letters of commendation, recommendation, and/or appreciation, certificates and awards and other public means of recognition for services rendered.

SPECIFIC SME CRITERIA FOR SERVICE PERFORMANCE BEFORE PROMOTION OR APPOINTMENT TO:

A. ASSISTANT PROFESSOR: EVIDENCE OF UNIVERSITY/PUBLIC SERVICE

B. ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR: CONTRIBUTIONS TO DEPARTMENT/SCHOOL/COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY MATTERS. CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE PUBLIC, INDUSTRY, GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND SERVICE TO THE PROFESSION.

C. PROFESSOR: EVIDENCE OF LEADERSHIP IN THE SERVICE AREA IS EXPECTED. CONTRIBUTIONS TO DEPARTMENTAL/SCHOOL/COLLEGE/ UNIVERSITY MATTERS ARE EXPECTED AS WELL AS EFFECTIVE APPLICATION OF EXPERTISE TO PROFESSIONAL AND PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS.

Draft 12/12/02

***********

VII	Committee Reports 

	A.	Curricular Affairs - R. Illingworth

A report was attached to the agenda. 

	B.	Faculty Affairs - P. McRoy

Peter McRoy indicated that no report was available as the committee has not met.  The committee will meet on Wednesday, February 12.  They are waiting for a number of issues to come to them including classified research.  

	C.	Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee – M. Murray

Rolf Gradinger spoke for the GAAC and indicated they have met twice in January.  Discussions includes the Joint Ph.D. and stacked courses.  The two subcommittees will meet on Friday, February 7th to discuss these two issues.  

	D.	Core Review - D. Schamel

A report was attached to the agenda.   Doug Schamel indicated that point number 5 in the report should be struck as this is being clarified.  

	E.	Curriculum Review - G. Holton

Gary Holton stated the committee reviewed nearly 200 course and degree requests.  One request was withdrawn.  Concerns by the committee include the number of changes that were submitted on minor change forms.   They should have been submitted on major change forms and included a course syllabus.  This slows up the approval process.  

	F.	Developmental Studies - J. Weber

A report was attached to the agenda. 

	G.	Faculty Appeals & Oversight - P. Layer

The committee has three items on their agenda.  The first includes the review of Paul Reichardt.  They are also looking into the Group B administrator reviews.  They are asking administrators for input into the process they will be using for those reviews.  The committee has been asked to look at students who violate the student code of conduct, especially cheating.  In general, he would like to hear about how other faculty have dealt with this issue.  

	H.	Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement – A. Bult-Ito

A report was attached to the agenda.  Pete Pinney would like to get together with the committee to discuss on-line evaluation.  

	I.	Ad Hoc Committee on Unit Criteria - G. Holton

The committee is currently looking at a number of unit criteria.  It would be very helpful if units use the existing format.  The push for developing unit specific criteria has worked.  

VIII	Members' Comments/Questions

Abel Bult-Ito spoke about the need for a new sound system.  

Jenifer McBeath wished everyone a happy Chinese New Year, which started February 1st.  A new China airlines is operating which stops in Hong Kong and then goes on to China.  To promote this new route the airlines will be offering a special.  

Godwin Chukwu thanked Pete Pinney and the rural sites for their participation.

IX	Adjournment

	The meeting was adjourned at 3:35 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.