MINUTES
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #116
MONDAY, May 5, 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.  			Bruder, J.
	Box, M.   				Curda, L.
	Bueler, E.    			Gradinger, R.
	Bult-Ito, A.   			Haugen, L.
	Chukwu, G.  			Morrison, J. 
	Dinstel, R.   			Simmons, B. 
	Duffy, L. 				Whiteledge, T.
	Gladden, J.  			Zhang, S. 
	Goering, G.    			
	Hannigan, M. 			
	Holton, G.      			OTHERS PRESENT:
	Illingworth, R. 			Anderson, J. 
	Leguard, J.  			Clark, C. 
	Luick, B.   				Collins, J.  
	Ma, Z.    				Cysewski, S.
	McBeath, J.  			Gregory, G.
	McCarthy, P. 			Herrmann, M.
	McRoy, P.    			Kopacz, E. 
	Newberry, R. 			Kupries, M. 
	Odess, D. 				Layral, S.
	Patil, S. 				Lind, M.
	Pinney, P.				Martin, W. 
	Schneider, W. 			Milner, L. 
	Weber, J.				Pippenger, M. 
	Zilberkant, E.			Read, C. 
	 					Reichardt, P.
	 					Robinson, T. 
	 					Thomas, K. 
	 					Wickmann, H. 
	 					Wisen, C. 

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

	B.	The minutes to Meeting #115 were not available for approval. 

	C.	The agenda was approved as distributed via e-mail.

II	Status of Chancellor's Office Actions
	A.	Motions approved: 
		1.	Motion to approve a Faculty Mentoring 
			Program Policy.
		2.	Motion to amend the administrator review 
			guidelines to establish a timeline and 
			process for Group B administrators.  
	B.	Motions pending:  none

III	Comments from Chancellor, Marshall Lind - 

The Chancellor thanked the Senate members for their hard work they have put in over the past year.  It is very much appreciated.  

He hopes to have news on the budget for the next year soon.  He encouraged everyone to watch the newspaper for the latest information.  It is a matter of the conference committee.  During the next few weeks there will be continued dialogue which the statewide office regarding budget planning for FY04 and FY05.  There is a lot of talk about outcome measures or specific metrics that will be used as part of the budget planning.  Chancellor Lind anticipates spending quite a bit of time on this issue over the next few months.  When the Senate returns In the fall it will be asking for direction in which way the budget planning should go in order for it to work.  

A successful open forum on the budget was held a couple of weeks ago.  There was a good turnout.  There were a lot of good comments given.  They will continue to post information on the web.  (http://www.uaf.edu/chancellor/budget/index.html)

	Comments from Provost, Paul Reichardt -

Provost Reichardt indicated there was a handout on the FY04 revenue and commitment projections.  This was discussed at the open forum and is updated every couple of weeks.  It outlines the expected revenues.  It also shows the anticipated expenses.  At the bottom is a $7.9 million projected deficit.  That deficit is the basis for the 6% tax on the general fund.  This will give us a balanced budget.  The 6% tax will cover all the basic expenditures and will leave $2.7 million for unanticipated expenses.  The $2.7 million is just about the approximate amount that will be lost from the deletion of the AST funds.  

Provost Reichardt spoke about the importance of trying to keep on top of the changing regulations with respect to international students and other international citizens.  Students must be registered as a full-time students.  When they are dropped below full-time, this puts them out of status.  Faculty are encouraged to check with the International Programs Office before making changes that would impact the status of international students.  

The search for the Vice Provost of Instructional Assessment and Dean of the Graduate School is continuing.  David Woodall is the chair.  The committee is holding telephone interviews and hopes to have identified three finalists to invite to campus by the end of the week.  

There will be a Deans/Director retreat on May 21.  The morning will be devoted to the FY04 budget and the afternoon discussion will be on the Academic Development Plan.  The Provost has asked the Senate leadership to submit four faculty names to attend the workshop.  

There was further discussion on the topic of international students and the impact of the changes in federal regulations.  

IV	Governance Reports

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

Pete Pinney had no comments. 

	B.	President's Comments - G. Chukwu

Godwin Chukwu reports on two good news items.  The Chancellor has made an offer to replace some of the audio equipment.  The Provost will provide extra funding for travel for some of our rural Senators to attend the face-to-face meetings.  Previously the funding came from each school or college budget.  

The Senate now has two perpetual plaques.  One includes the names of  all the Senate presidents and the other includes the recipients of the Senator of the Year Award.  Godwin Chukwu will recommend to the Provost Council that deans submit a list of recipients of outstanding faculty awards from different programs and colleges so they can be recognized and published in the Senate newsletter.  

	C.	Staff Council - L. Ledlow

Larry Ledlow indicated that this is his last meeting as well.  He reported that staff these days feel very vulnerable.  There is continued uncertainty about compensation, health benefits, and things like that.  So, feelings tend to get a little more acute as the end of the year approaches.  He would like to emphasis there is collective wisdom in this body and it would be a good idea to reach out and collaborate more effectively with other governance groups.  Staff can learn from the Senate.  He encouraged the Senate to step up and lend a hand.  Support through the Governance Coordinating Committee has been helpful. 

	D.	ASUAF - D. Miller

Derek Miller was not available to give a report.  The new ASUAF President is Thom Walker.  

		GSO - B. Andrews

Ben Andrews had nothing to report.  He may send out an email over the summer to get faculty input on graduate student concerns and issues. 

	E.	Academic Liaison - E. Kopacz

Eva Kopacz commented on the outstanding Distance Educator of the Year award.  The committee met this month to review the candidates who had been nominated.  A name has been forward to President Hamilton.  The announcement should be forthcoming in the near future.  

	F.	Budget Liaison - A. Bult-Ito

Abel Bult-Ito submitted a report with the agenda.  A major finding is that the budgets for the executive administration have increased 3.5 fold over funds allocated to academics purposes.  A general  recommendation for the next budget liaison is to look at these issues.  A second recommendation is a direct response to the Chancellor's and Provost's forum that took place is to get some recommendations on how to deal with the budget shortfall.  He recommends that the executive administration take a double tax.  He would also recommend that additional rationale be given as to why those budgets have been increasing much more than any other allocation.  Abel Bult-Ito did commend the Chancellor on holding his budget to only 9% increase over the last five years.  He asked for clarification on some of the data received.  He commends Marshall Lind, Paul, Reichardt, Joe Trubacz, and Ted DeLaca for opening up and being cooperative in giving data.  

V	Public Comments/Questions

1.	Laura Milner, Business Administration, spoke about the unit criteria for the School of Management.  AACSB, their external accreditation body, wants to see more faculty with Ph.D.'s and wants them publishing.  

2.	Mark Hermann, Economics Department, spoke of workload and accountability as it pertains to research standards.

3.	Colin Read, Economics Department, indicated that he has worked  since 1999 on developing unit criteria.  A dozen meetings have been held over the last year.  He also spoke about data on research and publications.  

4.	Hank Wickmann, Accounting Department, distributed a memo and asked the Senate to defeat the motion.  Accounting faculty are strongly against the SOM unit criteria and feel that it would be detrimental to the accounting program.  

5.	Tom Robinson, Accounting Department, stated that this issue should not be before the Senate.  Both sides have lost sight of the issue.  Unit Criteria are not the underlying problem in the school.  We need leadership that addresses the true needs of the school.  

6.	Jim Collins, Dean, SOM said that much has been made of the lack of opportunity for the Accounting faculty to have input in  developing unit criteria.  This goes back to 1999.  The cover memo addresses the unit criteria.  He has asked the accounting faculty if other schools have different criteria and most indicated there is no different.  

7.	Claudia Clark, Enrollment Management, spoke on the Developmental Studies motion on Mandatory Placement.  Enrollment management is supportive of the motion but has questions on the effective date of implementation.  There are issues on faculty work assignment.  We need time to gather information on how this will impact course scheduling and course assignments.   

VI	Old Business

	A.	Motion to approve the Unit Criteria for the School of Management, submitted by Ad Hoc Committee on Unit Criteria 

Gary Holton indicated there is a handout which summarizes the history of the committee deliberation.  He urged the passing of the unit criteria for the sake of junior faculty coming up for review.  The criteria have been modified to allow Accounting faculty to count professional certification toward their research requirement.  All faculty have had opportunity to give input.  Current regulations do not require unanimous support; they only require support from a majority of faculty.  

Jenifer McBeath asked about the changes and if this should be a service component.  Abel Bult-Ito is a member of the committee and supports the adoption of the SOM Unit Criteria.  Dan Odess, a member of the committee said it's clear there are some problems in the school.  However, it is unreasonable to hold up junior faculty who need a clear road map.  They have asked for input from the Accounting faculty.  He urged the adoption of the unit criteria.  

Bill Schneider asked how it articulates with the faculty workload.  Gary Holton indicated that evaluation is based on workload.  This criteria documents what is required for each workload component.  Of particular concern is the research component.  

Greg Goering spoke about the document and how many revisions it has gone through and the involvement of the Accounting faculty.  

The motion passed with 1 abstention.  

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve the Unit Criteria for the School of Management.  

	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately
				Upon Chancellor Approval

	RATIONALE: 	The School of Management (SOM) has 
		developed Unit Criteria which set very specific standards 
		for promotion and tenure.  The proposed criteria were 
		submitted by the SOM Dean with approval of a majority 
		of SOM faculty. The Unit Criteria proposal incorporates 
		minor changes in format and wording requested by the
		committee.  The resulting criteria have been 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 MANAGEMENT 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 MANAGEMENT.  ITEMS IN BOLDFACE ITALICS ARE THOSE SPECIFICALLY ADDED OR EMPHASIZED BECAUSE OF THEIR RELEVANCE TO THE SCHOOL'S 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 SOM 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 MANAGEMENT   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,

b.	narrative self-evaluation, WHICH PROVIDES A CLEAR STATEMENT OF TEACHING OBJECTIVES AND A SELF ASSESSMENT OF HOW THOSE OBJECTIVES ARE MET

	and at least TWO of:

c.	peer/department chair evaluation of course materials.

d.	peer/department chair classroom/ observation(s),

E. 	A CLASS PRE TEST AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SEMESTER OF NO MORE THAN TEN QUESTIONS FOLLOWED BY A POST TEST OF SIMILAR FORMAT AT THE END OF THE SEMESTER TO ASSESS STUDENT LEARNING.

F.	EXAMPLES OF STUDENT PROGRESS, REPRESENTED BY IMPROVEMENTS IN EARLY AND LATE SEMESTER PROJECTS, OR OTHER MECHANISMS THAT CAN DOCUMENT IMPROVEMENT.

G.	AN INVENTORY OF SKILLS LEARNED SELECTED FROM INDIVIDUAL STUDENTS’ WORK.

H.	DOCUMENTATION OF SCORES FROM ANY NATIONALLY NORMED COURSE-SPECIFIC EXAM. 

PERFORMANCE IN THE ABOVE AREAS WILL BE EVALUATED IN THE FOLLOWING TABLE (PLEASE CHECK ONE RANKING IN EACH ROW):

	UNSATISFACTORY					
CATEGORY	MARKEDLY DEFICIENT	BELOW THRESHOLD	SATISFACTORY	GOOD	VERY GOOD	EXCELLENT	
SYSTEMATIC STUDENT RATINGS 							
NARRATIVE SELF-EVALUATION 							
OTHER TEACHING ITEMS C-H 							

EVALUATORS MAY ASO CONSIDER OTHER FACTORS, INCLUDING: 

GRADE DISTRIBUTION 
TOTAL PREPARATIONS IN AN ACADEMIC YEAR
NEW PREPARATIONS 
GRADUATE COURSES
LARGE UNDERGRADUATE COURSES

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 SOM CRITERIA FOR RESEARCH PERFORMANCE:

A. RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY – FOR PROMOTION TO ASSOCIATE OR FULL PROFESSOR, IT MAY BE SUFFICIENT FOR A FACULTY MEMBER TO DEMONSTRATE RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY SINCE THE TIME OF LAST PROMOTION OF AT LEAST SIX JOURNAL ARTICLES THAT ARE EITHER SINGLE OR DOUBLE BLIND REFEREED, OR PUBLISHED IN AN EDITORIALLY REVIEWED JOURNAL OF RECOGNIZED HIGH QUALITY.  ALTERNATELY, A FACULTY MEMBER MAY PUBLISH FIVE SUCH JOURNAL ARTICLES AND TWO PAPERS PUBLISHED IN LESSER FORMAT, SUCH AS PAPERS AND PROCEEDINGS.  HOWEVER, A FACULTY MEMBER MAY NOT RECEIVE CREDIT MORE THAN ONCE FOR A PAPER THAT IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME CONTENT REGARDLESS OF INTEGRITY.  THOSE THAT MUST PERFORM SIGNIFICANT PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITY AND ATTAINMENT OF PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATION AS A CONDITION OF ACCREDITATION MAY CONSIDER A DETAILED PROFESSIONAL/INDUSTRY WORK REPORT OR DOCUMENTATION OF SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF A C.P.A. EXAMINATION AS A PUBLICATION IN A LESSER FORMAT. 

ALL FACULTY MEMBERS MUST DEMONSTRATE AN INDEPENDENT AND COHERENT RESEARCH AGENDA. EVIDENCE OF THIS CAN INCLUDE SOLE AUTHORED PAPERS OR A CONVINCING RECORD OF INITIATION OF INDEPENDENT RESEARCH. TO DEMONSTRATE A CONSISTENT FLOW OF RESEARCH, A FACULTY MEMBER WHO HAS COMPLETED WORK BEFORE ARRIVING AT THIS UNIVERSITY CAN COUNT NO MORE THAN THREE PAPERS TOWARD PROMOTION IF THOSE PAPERS WERE PUBLISHED WITHIN SIX YEARS OF THE DATE THE CANDIDATE PETITIONS FOR PROMOTION. 

BASED ON THE GUIDELINES AND ILLUSTRATIONS ABOVE, IT WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PEER REVIEW AND TENURE AND PROMOTION COMMITTEES TO MAKE FINAL JUDGMENTS OF SUFFICIENCY. THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA CAN BE USED TO DEMONSTRATE FLOW AND ACTIVE SCHOLARLY ENGAGEMENT:

1. ANNUAL AVERAGE NUMBER OF APPROPRIATELY REVIEWED JOURNAL ARTICLES QUANTITY OVER THE REVIEW PERIOD. THE CRITERIA IS AS FOLLOWS (PLEASE CHECK ONE):

	PRODUCED A RESEARCH AGENDA AND WORKED ON ONE ARTICLE	PRODUCED A RESEARCH AGENDA AND SUBMITTED ONE ARTICLE TO A LESSER FORUM	PRODUCED A RESEARCH AGENDA, SUBMITTED ONE ARTICLE TO A GOOD FORUM AND STARTED WORK ON A NEW ARTICLE	PRODUCED A RESEARCH AGENDA, 1 ARTICLE ACCEPTED TO A LESSER FORUM OR PROCEEDINGS	PRODUCED A RESEARCH AGENDA, 2 ARTICLES ACCEPTED TO A LESSER FORUM 
OR 1 ARTICLE ACCEPTED TO A GOOD FORUM	
PUBLICATIONS 						

2. ANNUAL AVERAGE NUMBER OF WORK-PRODUCTS (OTHER NON-PEER-REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS) OVER THE REVIEW PERIOD. THE CRITERIA IS AS FOLLOWS (PLEASE CHECK ONE):

	WORKED ON ONE PRODUCT	SUBMITTED ONE PRODUCT	SUBMITTED ONE PRODUCT AND STARTED WORK ON A NEW PRODUCT	1 PRODUCT ACCEPTED	2 PRODUCTS ACCEPTED
OR 1 PRODUCT ACCEPTED AND 1 PRODUCT SUBMITTED AND 1 NEW PRODUCT STARTED	
WORK-PRODUCT						

3. ANNUAL AVERAGE NUMBER OF BOOKS. THE CRITERIA IS AS FOLLOWS (PLEASE CHECK ONE):

	WORKED ON A PART OF ONE BOOK	WORKED ON A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF ONE BOOK	SUBMITTED A  BOOK FOR CONSIDERATION FOR PUBLICATION	BOOK ACCEPTED WHERE AUTHOR WROTE A PART OF THE BOOK	BOOK ACCEPTED WHERE AUTHOR WROTE A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE BOOK	
BOOK

4. PEER REVIEW OF DISCIPLINE KNOWLEDGE - THE DEAN OR HIS DESIGNEE WILL APPOINT EXTERNAL REVIEWERS IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT. THE CRITERIA FOR ANNUAL AVERAGE DISCIPLINE RESEARCH IS AS FOLLOWS (PLEASE CHECK ONE):

	SUPERVISED A GRADUATE STUDENT	PREPARED A COMPREHENSIVE RESEARCH PLAN	ATTENDED ONE  CONFERENCE OR KEPT CURRENT IN RELEVANT JOURNALS 	ATTENDED ONE CONFERENCE, PLUS KEPT CURRENT IN RELEVANT JOURNALS 	ATTENDED CONFERENCE, KEPT CURRENT IN RELEVANT JOURNALS, AND PARTICIPATED IN A STUDY	
DISCIPLINE

OVERALL PERFORMANCE IN THE ABOVE AREAS WILL BE EVALUATED IN THE FOLLOWING TABLE (PLEASE CHECK ONE):

	UNSATISFACTORY					
CATEGORY	MARKEDLY DEFICIENT	BELOW THRESHOLD	SATISFACTORY	GOOD	VERY GOOD	EXCELLENT	
BODY OF RESEARCH							

EVALUATORS MAY ASO CONSIDER OTHER FACTORS, INCLUDING: 

SOLE AUTHORSHIP
CITATIONS
INITIATION OF NEW RESEARCH AGENDAS

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.	Prizes and awards for excellence in public service.

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

h.	Training and facilitating.

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

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 SOM CRITERIA FOR SERVICE:

1. GOVERNANCE SERVICE WITHIN THE SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT (AN AVERAGE OF NO LESS THAN 100 HOURS DURING EACH ACADEMIC YEAR SHALL BE EXHIBITED IN THIS CATEGORY). THE CRITERIA IS AS FOLLOWS (PLEASE CHECK ONE):

	CONSISTENTLY ATTENDED SCHOOL MEETINGS AND COMMENCEMENTS	PARTICIPATED ON ONE OF THE CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEES	PROVIDED SUBSTANTIAL LEADERSHIP ON ONE OF THE COMMITTEES	CHAIRED A COMMITTEE OR WAS PRIMARY SPONSOR FOR STUDENT GROUP	CHAIRED A DEPARTMENT OR PROGRAM AND ACTIVELY PARTICIPATED ON A COMMITTEE	
SOM SERVICE						

2. UNIVERSITY- AND SYSTEM-WIDE SERVICE:- THIS IS SERVICE FOR THE UNIVERSITY. THE CRITERIA IS AS FOLLOWS FOR ANY (PLEASE CHECK ONE):

	WENT TO A UNIVERSITY WIDE MEETING	MEMBER OF  MINOR UNIVERSITY WIDE COMMITTEES	MEMBER OF  MAJOR UNIVERSITY WIDE COMMITTEES	CHAIRED A MINOR COMMITTEE 	UNION DUTIES OR SENATE REPRESENTATIVE OR CHAIRED A MAJOR COMMITTEE	
UNIVERSITY
SERVICE						

3. PROFESSIONAL OR PUBLIC SERVICE. THIS IS SERVICE TO ORGANIZATIONS IN A PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY. THE CRITERIA IS AS FOLLOWS (PLEASE CHECK ONE):

	ATTENDED A PROFESSIONAL MEETING	PARTICIPATED IN A PROFESSIONAL COMMITTEE	CHAIRED  A PROFESSIONAL COMMITTEE	PARTICIPATED IN EXTENDED SERVICE FOR THE PROFESSION OR THE STATE OF ALASKA	INITIATED AND COORDINATED A MAJOR COMMITTEE	
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE						

PERFORMANCE IN THE ABOVE AREAS WILL BE TABULATED IN THE FOLLOWING TABLE:

	UNSATISFACTORY					
CATEGORY	MARKEDLY DEFICIENT	BELOW TRESHOLD	SATISFACTORY	GOOD	VERY GOOD	EXCELLENT	
SOM SERVICE							
UNIVERSITY AND/OR PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 							

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

	B.	Motion on Classified Research Policy, submitted by Faculty Affairs 

Peter McRoy indicated that the committee reviewed the motion and made changes to the composition of the research oversight committee and asked that it be a Faculty Senate Permanent Committee.  

Larry Duffy complimented the committee for the work on the motion and urged support.  The motion passed unanimously.  

Larry Duffy asked that a copy of the motion be distributed to the various people who assisted in the development of the motion.  

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate, upon recommendation of the Faculty Affairs Committee and the Ad Hoc Committee on Classified Research, moves to approve a UAF Policy on Classified and Proprietary Research as follows.  

	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately

	RATIONALE: 	BOR Policy P10.07.02 specifies that the 
		university may engage in classified research, subject to 
		approval of the Chancellor, but no procedures or 
		guidelines are in place for faculty review and advice on 
		such contracts.  The suggested guidelines provide for 
		oversight and faculty review of classified and proprietary 
		research contracts while honoring ongoing agreements 
		with university constituents.

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

UAF Policy Concerning Classified and Proprietary Research

This statement of policy and procedures addresses the issues of whether and, if so, under what conditions, classified and proprietary research should be conducted at the University.  The goal of this policy is to establish a rigorous procedure guaranteeing that any classified or proprietary research be conducted in a responsible and ethical manner consistent with the mission of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.

The conduct of classified research restricts participation of students and limits faculty who work on such research.  The results of classified research may not be contained in theses nor used for faculty review or advancement.  The University seeks a policy, in principle, of complete disclosure of research activities and sources of funds.
 
At times, freedom of discourse and dissemination conflicts with the greater, immediate needs of society.  Research funded by industrial organizations may involve patent applications that require a short delay of publication of a thesis resulting from that research.  Faculty members may also wish to act as consultants on classified research projects not involving the use of University facilities.

For reasons such as the above, proposals to conduct classified and proprietary research will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis by the University campus chancellor and the UAF Faculty Research Oversight Committee, with disclosure to the Faculty Senate, following the guidelines set forth below.

Definitions

Classified Research:  Research that has a security classification established by a federal agency.

Various agencies of the federal government may designate some federally sponsored research project, either all or a portion of a particular project, as Top Secret, Secret, or Confidential.  Under the terms of this policy, research projects so designated are considered classified.

Proprietary Research:  Industrially sponsored proprietary research for which the sponsor requires a delay in publication of the results after submission of the final report.

GUIDELINES ON NEGOTIATING CLASSIFIED RESEARCH CONTRACTS OR ACTIVITIES 

1.	The University will under no circumstances enter into any agreement or contract for which the direct primary purpose of the research or application of the results is the destruction of human life or harm to humans.  The University will undertake only those contracts and activities that do not compromise the safety and/or well-being of Alaskans and that honor existing agreements with the diverse peoples of Alaska.

2.	The University will make every reasonable effort to keep classified information and activities separate from the normal academic functions of the University.

3.	No thesis that may not be published because it contains federally classified or proprietary information will be accepted toward fulfillment of the requirements for an advanced degree.

4.	For proprietary research the University will not enter into or renew any contract or accept any grant that prohibits the open publication or dissemination of research results within a reasonable period, typically (and expected to be) no more than 60 days or a period negotiated at the time of contract initiation.

5.	No University courses given for credit shall be classified in any part.

6.	The University will not accept any contract that cannot be publicly acknowledged.  The University will maintain an open record of all classified and proprietary research contracts.

7.	The University will permit the participation of faculty members in classified research of their choice by means of normal consulting arrangements or leaves of absence without pay.  Faculty shall not use classified research work in consideration for tenure, promotion or post-tenure review

8.	Any unique security costs associated with classified or proprietary research will be borne by the unit within which the contract is sponsored.

9.	The University will establish and maintain Facilities Security Officers to the degree necessary to ensure the legal compliance of all classified agreements.

10.	A Faculty Research Oversight Committee will be established as a Standing Committee of the Faculty Senate to review all classified and proprietary proposals, grants and contracts to advise the chancellor of their compliance or lack thereof with University policy.  Membership on the committee shall be limited to 9 senators, with no more than 2 members being from the same unit.  The Facilities Security Officer shall be an ex-officio member of the committee.   Committee membership must broadly represent the university community.

11.	The committee will offer changes to this policy as needed through periodic reviews occurring no less than once every 5 years.

Basic Principles

The UAF mission statement proclaims that the University of Alaska Fairbanks is "the nation’s northern most Land, Sea and Space Grant university and international research center, [which] advances and disseminates knowledge through creative teaching, research and public service with an emphasis on Alaska, the North and their diverse peoples" (BOR Policy 10.01.03).  Through exercising the fulfillment of that mission, the University has enabled relationships with government and industry presenting intellectual and professional opportunities to faculty and students that they would not otherwise have.  Concomitant with the open and full pursuit of that mission comes our understanding that the pursuit of knowledge must be tempered by ethical obligations to society; hence our concern with an ethical approach to permitting classified and proprietary research on campus.

The purpose of academic research in the University is the education of students, at all levels, and the generation of new knowledge.  It is important that the University undertake research of high quality and originality.  Ongoing research strengthens the University in a variety of ways;
  *	through the stimulation of creative and intellectual investigation by faculty and students,
  *	through the discovery and dissemination of new knowledge that benefits society,
  *	through participation in a learning process that is unique to research and creative investigation,
  *	through transmission of new knowledge to students in the classroom.

Obligation

The university guarantees each member of the academic community the freedom to inquire and affirms the right of each member to access all available information in his or her field.  A basic function of the University is to carry out research in an open and unrestricted manner with complete freedom to publish or otherwise disseminate the results of its search for knowledge.  The requirements of secrecy and restrictions on freedom to publish, which are inherent in security classification, or the restrictions on dissemination, which derive from proprietary rights of privately sponsored research, are in direct opposition to this function.

Exercising this function does not, however, prohibit self-imposed restrictions based on the professional ethics of a particular discipline.  It also does not prohibit the existence of classified information to reside on campus such as sometimes arises, for instance, in connection with consulting work.  This policy is directed towards maintaining a separation between classified information and the teaching and research functions of the University.

The review process for classified and proprietary research proposals shall be as follows:

  *	The Faculty Research Oversight Committee shall use a checklist to determine if a project requires formal review.
  *	The Faculty Research Oversight Committee shall review classified or proprietary proposals and offer recommendations to the chancellor in an expedited fashion.
  *	The Faculty Research Oversight Committee will publish an annual report on the status of classified and proprietary contracts, grants and proposals to the UAF Faculty Senate on an annual basis.
  *	The Faculty Research Oversight Committee (see above) shall also include a person from the Office of Sponsored Research and a designee of the chancellor as ex-officio members.

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

VII	Consent Agenda

	A.	Resolution of recognition for the UAF rifle team, submitted by Administrative Committee 

Resolution approved upon the adoption of the agenda.  

RESOLUTION OF RECOGNITION

WHEREAS, The UAF rifle team won its fifth consecutive NCAA title in March, setting NCAA records in smallbore and aggregate scoring, and 

WHEREAS, Matt Emmons captured the smallbore title for the third straight year, breaking his own NCAA record and becoming the first person to win four individual titles in a career, and 

WHEREAS, Per Sandberg led UAF's air rifle team to a new NCAA composite score, and 

WHEREAS, Jamie Beyerle was crowned the champion in air rifle, the first freshman in school history to win a national title, and 

WHEREAS, Matt Wallace earned a silver medal in smallbore at the Junior Olympics, and 

WHEREAS, Seven members of the Nanook rifle team earned National Rifle Association All-American status based on their performance throughout the 2002-2003 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 2002-2003 UAF rifle team as NCAA champion and commends the team's superior performance.  

Godwin A. Chukwu
President, UAF Faculty Senate

April 23, 2003

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

B.	Motion to approve the list of the 2002-2003 degree candidates, submitted by Administrative Committee 

Motion approved upon the adoption of the agenda.

MOTION:
======

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.

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

	C.	Motion to amend the Reserving Courses for Graduate Programs policy, submitted by Curricular Affairs 

Motion approved upon the adoption of the agenda.

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the Reserving Courses for Graduate Programs policy (page 26 of the 2003-04 UAF catalog) as follows:

[[    ]] 	= Deletion

______ 	= Addition

CAPS  	= Addition

RESERVING COURSES FOR GRADUATE PROGRAMS

If [[you're]] YOU ARE a senior with only a few remaining requirements for your bachelor's degree, you may take courses at the 400-LEVEL [[upper division]] or graduate level and have them reserved for an advanced degree.  To do this, you must be in your final year of an undergraduate program and must submit a written petition during the first four weeks of the semester identifying which courses being taken that semester are to be reserved for graduate study and not counted toward your bachelor's degree.  (Reserving courses does not, however, assure they will be accepted by a graduate advisory committee as part of your eventual graduate program.)  

	EFFECTIVE:  Immediately

	RATIONALE:   This motion specifies the upper division level 
		requirement that is allowed in graduate programs.  
		Current policy is out of compliance with graduate 
		program requirements.

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

	D.	Motion to delete the Certificate in Emergency Services (formerly Fire Science), submitted by Curricular Affairs 

Motion approved upon the adoption of the agenda.

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to delete the Emergency Services (formerly Fire Science) Certificates.  

	EFFECTIVE:  	Fall 2003 or 
			Upon Board of Regents' Approval

	RATIONALE: 	See full program proposal #28 on file in the 
			Governance Office, 312 Signers’ Hall.

		The demand for Emergency Services (formerly Fire 
		Science) Certificates with concentrations in Emergency 
		Medical Services, Hazardous Materials Control, Municipal 
		Fire Control, Public Safety, and Wildlands Fire Control 
		have always been low.  

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

Executive Summary
Certificate, Emergency Services

The UAF-TVC Emergency Services (formerly Fire Science) Program requests the deletion of Certificates in Municipal Fire Control, Wildlands Fire Control, Hazardous Materials Control, Public Safety, and Emergency Medical Services.  Since 1979 only 25 certificates have been issued compared to 283 A.A.S. degrees and 6 B.T. degrees.  Most fire departments place little value on certificates compared to A.A.S. degrees for hiring and promotions.  This was confirmed by outcomes assessment questionnaires from both employers and graduates that indicate a new trend within the fire service.  Employers are now seeking emergency personnel that are proficient in areas of written and oral communication, computation and human relations rather than graduates with only the FIRE and EMS courses.  Graduates without general education skills are unable to pass highly competitive written entrance exams administered by larger fire departments for placement on hiring rosters.  The certificate has outlived it usefulness for highly competitive careers in fire departments and emergency services.  Graduates seeking leadership roles in the fire services are recognizing the benefit of completing the B.T. degree which combines the technical knowledge of the A.A.S. degree with business administration to become Fire Chiefs of the future.  

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

	E.	Resolution of Recognition for Godwin Chukwu, submitted by Administrative Committee 

Resolution approved upon the adoption of the agenda.

RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION
FOR
GODWIN A. CHUKWU

WHEREAS, Godwin Chukwu has professionally and ethically served the Faculty Senate since 1999; and,

WHEREAS, Godwin Chukwu has served as a member of the Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee from 1999 to 2001, and as Chair from 2000 to 2001; and,

WHEREAS, Godwin Chukwu initiated the Faculty Senate newsletter to better inform the faculty on pertinent university information that would assist faculty in their jobs; and,

WHEREAS, Godwin Chukwu included rural sites prominently in faculty discussions by virtue of conducting meetings from extended campuses throughout the year; and,

WHEREAS, Godwin Chukwu has served as Chair of the Administrative Committee and as President-Elect of the UAF Faculty Senate for 2001-2002; and,

WHEREAS, Godwin Chukwu has served as a member of the UAF Governance Coordinating Committee from 2001-2003; and 

WHEREAS, Godwin Chukwu has served as a member of the Faculty Alliance and UA Systemwide Governance Council from 2001-2003; and,

WHEREAS, Godwin Chukwu has served as President of the UAF Faculty Senate from 2002-2003; and,

WHEREAS, the UAF Faculty Senate wishes to acknowledge the outstanding service rendered the faculty and the university by Godwin Chukwu, as he concludes his term as President; now,

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the UAF Faculty Senate acknowledges the many contributions of Godwin Chukwu and expresses its appreciation for his exemplary service.

					Pete Pinney
				President, UAF Faculty Senate
					May 5, 2003

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

VIII	New Business

	A.	Motion on mandatory placement policy, submitted by Developmental Studies and Curricular Affairs 

Ron Illingworth introduced the motion.  The motion will establish a policy which will work with the Developmental Studies department to implement the policy over the next two years.  

Dan Odess raised the issue of the quality of students and their ability to read and write.  He asked if there is a mechanism for faculty to identify students who need remedial work.  Claudia Clark indicated that faculty can run a prerequisite report and drop students who do not meet the prerequisites.  

Ron Illingworth stated that prerequisites for courses may be looked at in the context of looking at broader requirements.  

The motion passed unanimously.

MOTION:
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate, upon recommendation of the Developmental Studies Committee and the Curricular Affairs Committee, moves to approve the following Mandatory Placement Policy:

Placement Policy

	Students who do not meet basic skills standards in reading, writing, and mathematics must complete appropriate Developmental Education course instruction.  Such students should not enroll in 100-level or above courses that depend on these skills until they have satisfactorily met the exit criteria of the appropriate Developmental Education course(s).

	EFFECTIVE:  	Fall 2003 to be phased in gradually 
		over the next two years.

	RATIONALE: 	Current policies in place at UAF require 
		assessment and advising, but not placement.  First-term 
		students entering certificate or degree programs, 
		transfer students with less than 30 acceptable credits, 
		and non-degree seeking students planning on taking 100-
		level written communication or mathematics courses, or 
		courses with these as a prerequisite, will be assessed in 
		reading, writing, and mathematics.  The UAF Developmental 
		Studies program underwent an external review during 
		AY 2002.  One of the recommendations of that external 
		review was to establish a mandatory placement policy.  
		Because implementation of this policy is likely to require 
		the establishment of additional sections of existing 
		courses and additional assessment opportunities, the 
		recommendation included a phase-in approach over a 
		2 year period.

		The professional associations for the Developmental 
		Studies area, the National Association of Developmental 
		Education (NADE), the College Reading and Learning 
		Association (CRLA), American Mathematical Association 
		of Two Year Colleges (AMATYC) all recommend mandatory 
		assessment and mandatory placement.  These 
		recommendations are based on the results of extensive 
		national research projects.  These two elements, 
		mandatory assessment and mandatory placement, have 
		been identified as two elements which have a strong 
		correlation with increased student success in college-
		level coursework.

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

	B.	Motion to approve a statement with the IAS Student Evaluation package, submitted by Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement 

Abel Bult-Ito stated that the committee has discussed this issue over the past year.  The committee hopes this will improve the feedback and use of the forms.  This will give the students information on why they are asked to do the evaluation.  The motion passed unanimously.

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate, upon recommendation of the Faculty Development, Assessment, and Improvement Committee, moves to approve the following addition to the IAS student evaluation package:

PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT TO THE CLASS.  (If possible have your department chair visit your class and read this statement, and take questions.)

Since 1980 UAF students have been filling out teaching evaluations at the end of each class each semester.  There are several important reasons for this exercise:

1.	To aid future students by curriculum improvement;
2.	To aid future students by improvement of teaching by 
	individual faculty members; 
3.	To aid future students in course selection;
4.	For input in faculty tenure and/or promotion reviews.

The evaluation consists of TWO different forms. The first is computer-scored.  Each question on this form needs to be carefully read and answered.  Questions 1-4 are the most important and relevant, so pay special attention to them.  The average of these four questions is the primary measure of the instructor's performance in the class.  The statistical results from this form are returned, well after grades are submitted, to the instructor and their dean.  They also go into the instructor's permanent file.

The yellow comment forms are returned, well after grades are submitted, to the instructor ONLY.  Use this form to give your faculty member helpful suggestions about improving the class.

Your careful input on both forms is very important.

	EFFECTIVE:   	Immediately

	RATIONALE:   	During extensive discussions in the Faculty 
		Development Assessment, and Improvement Committee, 
		areas were identified, which could improve the IAS 
		student evaluation process.  One of those included the 
		improvement of students' understanding of the 
		importance of the IAS and “yellow sheet” evaluations 
		and what they are used for.  This motion will establish 
		such an improvement.

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

	C.	Report on the Joint Ph.D. Proposal, submitted by Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee 

Maribeth Murray indicated that the Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee was asked to prepare a report on the draft guidelines for developing UA joint doctoral programs.  The committee met a number of times over the past year with faculty, the Provost, and the Psychology department.  They recommend that the draft guidelines not be adopted.  The committee will continue to look at and review collaborative proposals that come from the faculty.  

A Report on the Draft Guidelines for Developing UA Joint Doctoral Programs

Prepared by:  Graduate Academic and Advisory Committee 

April 25, 2003

At the request of the UAF Faculty Senate, the Graduate Academic Advisory Committee prepared the following review of the Draft Guidelines for the Development of UA Joint Doctoral Programs.  As part of the report preparation process a sub-committee of the GAAC held four public meetings to solicit input on the Draft Guidelines for the Development of UA Joint Doctoral Programs, and met with members of the drafting committee, the Dean of the Graduate School, the UAF Provost, and interested and affected UAF faculty.

As the GAAC understands it the purpose of the Draft Guidelines document is to provide an overarching framework for joint Ph.D. development within the UA system.  While such a framework may be a worthy endeavor, the committee has many concerns about the present document.  Major concerns include the following: 

1) The Draft provides no information as to the level of financial commitment, if any, on the part of the affected MAU's for developing the infrastructure identified within and/or for supporting new program development. 

2) The document creates an unwieldy, and probably costly new administrative structure that is unlikely to serve departments, individual programs, and students to best effect.  The Draft requires the creation of one new administrative position (Dean of the Joint Doctoral Programs), as well as new committees above the department and faculty levels to approve programs, curriculum, and admissions.  At least one of these new committees, the Joint Steering Committee for Each Proposed Joint Ph.D. Program has no faculty representation, while the other committees consist of members appointed by administration. 

3) The proposed Joint Ph.D. model is driven from the top down rather than by the faculty, or from the bottom up. 

As such the GAAC does not recommend adoption of the guidelines outlined in the Draft document.  Further the committee suggests that existing regulations for Ph.D. admissions, UAF requirements for doctoral degrees, and degree granting provide sufficient guidelines for managing new joint programs, the specifics of which must be worked out at the faculty level.  Initiatives to develop joint degrees should be driven co-operatively by the faculty within interested departments in the UA system. 

The existing model for collaborative UAF/UAA doctoral degrees is probably sufficient for most programs, although the development of Joint Doctoral programs may benefit some.  The committee understands that UAF is the Doctoral granting institution in the state of Alaska and recommends that the development of Joint Doctoral Programs should not affect this.  The process and proposal developed by faculty for a Joint UAF/UAA Doctoral Program in Psychology is one example of how other departments might proceed in such an endeavor.  Information on the Psychology Proposal will be made available on the Faculty Senate web site.

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

VII	Annual Committee Reports 

	A.	Curricular Affairs - R. Illingworth

A report was attached to the agenda.   There are a number of items that were not worked on this year and will be forwarded to the committee next year.  One item will be the academic readiness of our students and what can we do to assist student potential for success.  

	B.	Faculty Affairs - P. McRoy

The following report was distributed as a handout.  An issue that will be forwarded to next years committee will be the trailing spousal/partner policy.  

2002-2003 Annual Report of the Faculty Affairs Committee
Committee Members and Affiliation:
Mark Box, CLA
Abel Bult-Ito, CSEM (Co-chair)
Joan Leguard, CLA
Bret Luick, CRA
Jennifer McBeath, SALARM
Peter McRoy, SFOS (Chair)
Dan Odess, CLA
Shirish Patil, SME
Bret Simmons, SOM
Roger Smith, 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:

Classified and Proprietary Research 
The objective of this classified and proprietary research policy to establish a procedure for UAF to decide whether classified/proprietary research will be conducted and what conditions are necessary for conducting such research.  This agenda item was brought forward from last year after the policy failed to pass the Senate in the final spring meeting.  The Senate appointed a new ad hoc committee to develop a revised policy document and, after completing its work, this committee transferred a new policy to Faculty Affairs in a joint meeting held in March 2003.  Faculty Affairs made a few revisions to the document, particularly in the area of the membership and election of the Faculty Oversight Review Committee.  The revised document is on the agenda (again) for the final meeting of the year.

Spousal Hiring Policy
This issue was a carry-over from last year.  The purpose of the policy is to establish program to accommodate dual career couples seeking academic positions at UAF.  The policy was brought to the senate floor in April and was sent back to committee.  After review in committee in late April with Earlina Bowden the committee decided to forward the policy to next year's Faculty Affairs Committee for final revision.

Proposed Vice Provost for Graduate and Instructional Affairs 
	The announcement by the Provost’s Office for the search for a replacement of position of the Graduate Dean caused concerns among the faculty.  A resolution was sent to the Senate of the resolution reaffirming the wishes of the faculty to retain the position as a Dean of the Graduate School (Passed).

News Miner/UAF Gubernatorial Debate 
	In September the Committee raised concern over the arrangements for proposed debate of gubernatorial candidates sponsored by the News Miner and KUAC to be held on the UAF campus.  Objections from faculty were raised on several issues: not all gubernatorial candidates were invited to participate, screening of participants and questions by unidentified persons, and restricted audience size.  The committee did not at the time recommend senate action but a resolution concerning this issue was brought to the senate floor by other senators. (Failed)

Bookstore Policy & Procedures
In response to several complaints from faculty concerning UAF Bookstore procedures for ordering textbooks, the committee members met with bookstore staff and subsequently developed a resolution concerning the handling of texts required for courses (passed).

Parking Master Plan
	Parking continues to be a contentious issue on campus.  Although Faculty Affairs sought to have a new committee established with more involvement of the Faculty Senate, the Chancellor decided to create a parking subcommittee of the Master Plan Committee to resolve the issues.  Shirish Patil, also a member of Faculty affairs, was appointed chair of the new Parking Subcommittee of the Master Planning Committee (PS/MPC).  The PS/MPC will replace all older parking committees and functions; in addition a new appeals committee has been created.   A consulting firm will again study parking on campus.  It is not clear if the new committee will treat many of the issues expressed by faculty and staff consequently this remains an important item for Faculty Affairs.  This is an issue that requires more involvement of the next senate.

The numerous complaints to committee members from West Ridge faculty and staff over current and proposed changes in parking and circulation on the West Ridge brought this item to the attention of the committee.  Chief concerns of the FA committee members were that the planning for new construction was done apparently without consideration of needs of the faculty staff and students and no preliminary meetings were held to resolve issues before new rules were announced.  Furthermore, the parking police have apparently been especially busy in distributing citations to West Ridge people.  This increase in citations is apparently a result of the closure of several traditional parking areas for construction resulting in a free-for-all search for parking space.  Since the UAF parking regulations state that parking is not permitted anywhere unless a sign says so, a rule reminiscent of life in the former Soviet Union, many people who thought their vehicles were legal were given tickets.  West Ridge parking during construction and in the Master Plan remains an explosive issue and requires more involvement of faculty, staff and students.   A task force should be established to assist the other planning committees.

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.  To this end, Senate President Chukwu appointed Abel Bult-Ito as budget liaison for the Faculty Senate.  The liaison meets regularly with the Provost to discuss questions pertaining to the budget and reports directly to the Senate Administrative Committee and to Faculty Affairs.  The budget liaison position is a good beginning and Faculty Affairs seeks more involvement for the Faculty Senate in the UAF budget process. 

Submitted for the committee by C.P. McRoy
2 May 2003

	C.	Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee – M. Murray

A report was attached to the agenda.  Item f under minor business will be held until new year for further discussion.

	D.	Core Review - D. Schamel

A report was attached to the agenda. 

	E.	Curriculum Review - G. Holton

The following report was distributed as a handout. 

UAF Faculty Senate
Curriculum Review Committee

AY02-03 Annual Report
May 1, 2003

Submitted by Gary Holton, chair

AY02-03 Committee Members:
Gang Chen (SME)
Carol Barnhardt (SoE)
Steve Cysewski (CRA)
Gayle Gregory (Registrar's Rep.)
Gary Holton, chair (Curricular Affairs)
Zorana Lazarevic (CSEM)
Debbie Moses (DVEM)
Gerald Plumley (SFOS)
Thomas Riccio (CLA)
Dave Verbyla (SNRAS)
Mike Decelles (SOM)
Carol Lewis (Administration Representative)
 Thom Walker (Student Rep)

Fall 2002
The Curriculum Review (CR) committee met seven times during Fall 2002 and considered 174 course and degree proposals.  Of these 172 were approved, 1 was withdrawn, and 1 was deferred.

The proposals included 4 new degree program proposals and one program deletion:
	Proposal #22, Minor in Environmental Politics
	#23, delete B.A., Human Service (HSV)
	#53, Certificate, Educator: Paraprofessional (EDPA)
	#54, A.A.S., Educator: Paraprofessional (EDPA)
	#119, B.S., Computer Engineering

All new program and deletion proposals were approved and forwarded to Curricular Affairs.  There was significant discussion regarding the EDPA proposals, largely focusing on the academic supervisory authority for the degree. These discussions are part of a larger dialogue about program "home".  In general, the CR committee does not support the practice of locating academic departments within administrative units, such as colleges or rural campuses. 

The Fall 2002 review process was complicated by a large number of "major" course changes which were submitted using "minor" change forms.  These proposals were diverted to CR because they were recognized to constitute major changes, as defined in the UAF Course and Degree Procedures manual.  Because they were submitted on minor change forms, these proposals often lacked significant information (e.g., syllabus) necessary to evaluate the proposals. Committee members were thus required to seek further information from the proposer.

A not unrelated issue arose from the interactions between committee members and UAF faculty in researching course proposals.  In at least one instance, a committee member was treated very unprofessionally by a course proposer, the chair of the relevant college curriculum council, and the dean of that college.  It was apparently felt by those individuals that the committee member was meddling in curricular issues which were not the business of anyone outside the department and college in question.  The issue was eventually resolved with intervention by the Senate president, and apologies were offered by all parties.  However, the incident highlighted (i) the need for committee members to clearly differentiate the capacity in which they are contacting other faculty (e.g., "...on behalf of the Curriculum Review committee), and (ii) the need for faculty to be educated regarding the course and degree review process. 

Spring 2003
The Curriculum Review (CR) committee met four times during Spring 2003 and considered 66 course and degree proposals. Of these 65 were approved, and 1 was withdrawn. One proposal deferred from Fall 2002 was approved. 

The Spring 2003 proposals included one program deletion proposal and one new degree program proposal.  Although such requests are normally considered only in the Fall cycle, these proposals were considered because (i) the deletion was rather straightforward; and (ii) there is some urgency in approving the new degree program. Discussion regarding the proposed B.A. in Social Studies centered on the "home" department for the program.  The degree prepares students for a post-baccalaureate program in secondary education for social studies and requires close advising by School of Ed.  However, it is proposed that the program be housed in the History Department, CLA.  History expressed unwillingness to devote faculty time to this program unless additional resources in the form of a new FTE were devoted to the program.  Both the program deletion and the B.A. in Social Studies were approved and forwarded to Curricular Affairs. 

General remarks on the committee process
Based on my observations of the committee process I would offer the following recommendations:

College Curriculum Committees. The quality of the work performed by the various college curriculum committees is very uneven. The workload of the CR committee could be greatly reduced if all college curriculum committees meticulously checked proposals before submitting them to the Senate. Details such as course repeatability, course designators, attachment of syllabus are much more easily checked at the college level.  The review process is thus streamlined if errors or omissions can be determined at the college level.

Computerization.  Much time is spent shuffling paper around. Because the CR committee generally receives only one copy of each proposal, it is difficult for more than one committee member at a time to review a proposal. This could be greatly simplified if electronic copies of course and degree proposals were required in addition to the signed paper copy.  Most proposers already complete the form as a word processor document, so the burden on faculty would not be too onerous.  With electronic copies all CR members could have ready access to all proposals for review. 

Faculty Education.  There is a great need for faculty to be educated regarding the review process.  Lack of understanding regarding the nature of Senate and CR in the academic review process led to many misunderstandings.  Most of these were cleared up easily, though at least one incident turned into a major brouhaha (see "Fall 2002" above).

Course & Degree Proposal Preparation Guidelines/Training.  There is great need for faculty, especially those serving on the college curriculum councils, to receive guidelines and training in the preparation of course and degree proposals.  Curricular Affairs is currently address issue surrounding credit hour distribution, a source of great confusion for course proposers.  Yet there are many other areas in which faculty need training, for example, the course repeatability section of the new course form.  

	F.	Developmental Studies - J. Weber

A report was attached to the agenda.  The Development Studies oversight function will be transferred to the newly formed Developmental Education department.  

	G.	Faculty Appeals & Oversight - P. Layer

A report was attached to the agenda.  Next year the committee will be more actively involved in Administrator Evaluation.  The review of the Provost is completed.  The committee will meet with the Chair of the Review Committee and the Chancellor on Wednesday to hear his report.  

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

A report was attached to the agenda.  A policy on travel funds will be an issue for discussion next year.  There is a need for a policy to assist the Director in handling the travel fund requests.  

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

The following report was distributed as a handout.

UAF Faculty Senate
Ad Hoc Committee on Unit Criteria

AY02-03 Annual Report
May 1, 2003

Submitted by Gary Holton, chair

AY02-03 Committee Members:
Abel Bult-Ito (FDAIC)
Gary Holton  (Curricular Affairs), chair
Dan Odess (Faculty Affairs)
Julie Riley (Faculty Appeals)

Overview
The Ad Hoc Committee on Unit Criteria (AHCUC) met seven times during the AY02-03 academic year.  All meetings were audio-conferenced.  A total of seven guests attended committee meetings during course of the year.  The committee discussed six Unit Criteria (UC) proposals.  Three were forwarded to the Senate with recommendation for approval.  Three were returned to the proposers with suggestions for further revision.  In addition to discussing specific UC proposals, the committee considered a number of procedural and policy issues related to UC.  While no policy motion was put forward to the Senate, such a move may be warranted in the future in order to bring more clarity to the UC process.

Status of Unit Criteria Proposals
UC forwarded to Senate
     School of Mineral Engineering
     Cooperative Extension Service
     School of Management*

UC pending committee action
     Mathematics
     Journalism
     School of Education**

*pending Senate action
**introduced AY01-02; no activity during AY02-03

The School of Mineral Engineering and Cooperative Extension Service UC proposals were easily approved by the committee with only a few minor revisions required.  This was largely due to the fact that these UC were submitted in a format similar to existing UC and were hence easy for the committee to evaluate.  The School of Management (SOM) UC presented a greater challenge.  However, the committee was able to work with the SOM faculty and dean over several months to create a revised proposal whose format more closely resembles existing criteria and whose contents serves the needs of evaluators at various levels of the review process.
The SOM UC proposal was greatly complicated by divisiveness within the unit.  While other UC proposals were forwarded to the committee with generally unanimous approval of unit faculty, there were significant objections to the SOM UC proposal, apparently localized to a single department within SOM.  Since current regulations require approval by a majority of discipline faculty, so while the approval process fulfills the letter of the regulation, they do not represent a consensus of the faculty. 
The committee addressed this issue by specifically soliciting input from dissenting SOM faculty.  However, after several months and several committee meetings, the dissenting faculty were unable to suggest substantive revisions to the SOM proposal.  Nor did the dissenting faculty develop an alternative UC proposal.  The committee thus decided to recommend the SOM UC for approval, having made significant revisions to the formatting of the proposal. 
Following rejection of the SOM UC at the April Senate meeting, the committee again met with SOM faculty to work out a revised proposal which could be supported by all SOM faculty.  The most difficult point of contention regards the number of peer-reviewed journal articles.  The UC proposal requires six (6) for tenure (or 5 plus 2 in a non-peer-reviewed format).  Dissenting faculty indicated at the April 25th committee meeting that four would be more appropriate for accounting faculty who must fulfill "recent relevant experience" and CPA requirements.  The committee suggested a compromise whereby "recent relevant experience" and CPA examination could be counted in lieu of the two non-peer-reviewed papers.  While this compromise seemed to hold at the committee meeting, the revised language was subsequently rejected by accounting faculty at a SOM meeting.  The revised language was adopted by the remainder of the SOM faculty, leaving a revised SOM UC proposal which has been approved by a major of discipline faculty, though not unanimously.  The committee will again forward this revised proposal to the Senate at the May meeting with a recommendation to approve. 
The Journalism and Math UC proposals both appear to be highly meritorious, and the committee is working with those departments to revise the UC before forwarding them to the Senate.

Procedural and Policy Issues
Scope of unit criteria
The committee recognizes an inconsistency in the use of the term "unit" as defined in Blue Book IV.B.5.a.  In particular, the units which operate at the "unit peer review" level of the faculty evaluation process are not necessarily the same as the units which have "unit criteria".  There exist unit criteria which apply to entities which are smaller than a peer-review unit (e.g., Alaska Native Language Center); there also exist unit criteria which apply to entities larger than a peer-review unit (e.g., College of Natural Science).  Thus units criteria may apply to groups of faculty which do not constitute peer-review units.  The committee discussed the idea of replacing the term unit criteria with an alternative terms such as "discipline criteria".  However, after much discussion, it was decided that that the existing use of the term "unit criteria", while rather vague, is appropriate. 
Faculty approval process
Current policy requires that a majority of the faculty in the discipline approve unit criteria, however, this policy is vague and unenforceable.  It is particularly problematic when the dissenting minority constitute a discipline-specific subgroup of unit, as has occurred with the SOM criteria this year.  It was also suggested that, where unit criteria are proposed for large colleges, the criteria should be approved by a majority of the faculty in each department affected by the criteria.  The committee will address this by ensuring all faculty affected by a proposed unit criteria receive an invitation to attend the ad-hoc committee meetings when those criteria are discussed. 
Format for unit criteria proposals
The committee recommends that UC proposals be submitted as revisions of the existing regulations for "Periodic Evaluation of Faculty" (Blue Book III.A., B., C., D.), with additions noted in CAPS.  This format is exemplified in the existing Alaska Native Language Center criteria (see http://www.uaf.edu/provost/UnitPeerCriteria/UnitPeerCriteria. html).  This format has several advantages both for the approval process and for implementation by review committees.  In addition to lending a standard format to all unit criteria proposals, this format allows evaluators to quickly identify the unit-specific criteria. 
Review process for existing criteria
Current policy requires that existing unit criteria be reviewed by the faculty of the unit at least every five years.  Policy needs to be changed to give faculty senate explicit oversight of the review process.  Revisions to criteria resulting from this 5-year review should go through the regular faculty senate approval process.  Units wishing to retain unit criteria without modification could do so by submitting a statement to this effect.  However, the committee is concerned that even minor changes to unit criteria should require a full review process, due to their potential impact on faculty. 
Applicability of unit criteria when modified during a period of faculty review
When criteria are modified during a faculty member’s review period (tenure, promotion, post-tenure), the committee feels that the faculty member should be able to choose which of the criteria in effect at any time during the review period apply.  However, the length of time which a faculty member may use criteria which have been superceded should be limited.  It was suggested that a review should fall under the new criteria as soon as a faculty member has undergone tenure or post-tenure review.  It was decided that this issue needs to be addressed via a policy change.  Further discussion with other senators and administrators has pointed out the difficulty of implementing such a policy.  It may be better for these types of issues to be handled on a case by case basis.  That is, in cases where unit criteria are significantly altered during a review period, the faculty member could include in her file an argument regarding the applicability of the newly adopted criteria. 
Requirement for unit criteria
Current regulations requires that units choosing not to develop unit criteria file a statement of such intent with the Provost.  This regulation has apparently not been enforced, as the committee is aware of no such statements on file.  The committee recommends that this requirement be enforced.  A Senate motion to that effect may be warranted in the future. 

X.	Members' Comments - 

Godwin Chukwu thanked the members and committees for their hard work and making things easier for him.  

Peter McRoy asked about the Staff Council representative and asked if anyone from the Faculty Senate attends their meetings.  Godwin Chukwu indicated that he attends their meetings and gives a report.  

XI	Announcements of Award Recipients

	A.	Announcement of the Outstanding Senator of the Year Award

Ron Illingworth was recognized as the first recipient of the Outstanding Senator of the Year award.  

	B.	Presentation of Resolution of Recognition for Godwin Chukwu

Pete Pinney presented the resolution of recognition for Godwin Chukwu as he concludes his term of office.  

	C.	Announcement of Usibelli Awards 

Larry Duffy indicated that one of the Usibelli Award recipients, Rainer Newberry, is a Faculty Senate member and has done an outstanding job.  David Woodall indicated that Keith Echielmeyer holds a joint faculty position under CSEM.  

	D.	Announcement of Emeriti Faculty Awards 

The list of emeriti faculty was read.  Ron Gatterdam, a past president of the Senate is retiring.  John Leipzig, another past president has already retired.  They are both being honored with emeritus status.  

A reception honoring all the award recipients follows the Faculty Senate meeting.  

XII	Adjournment of the 2002-2003 Faculty Senate

XIII	2003-2004 Faculty Senate Members Take Their Seats

	The meeting was called to order by President Pinney at 3:35 p.m.

A.	Roll Call of 2003-2004 Members

	Members Present:		Members Absent:
	Barnhardt, C.			Allen, J.
	Bult-Ito, A.   			Berman, G.
	Dinstel, R.   			Box, M.
	Erickson, K. (J. Gladden)	Cysewski, S.
	Hannigan, M. 			Davis, M.
	Herman, S.   			Gradinger, R. 
	Kupries, M.  			Haugen, L.
	Leguard, J.  			Ma, Z.
	Luick, B.   				Newberry, R.
	McBeath, J.  			Patil, S. 
	McCarthy, P. 			Reynolds, J. 
	McRoy, P.     			Shur, Y.
	Nakaneczny, M.  			Zhang, S.
	Odess, D.     			
	Pinney, P.				
	Roberts, L. 
	Schneider, W. (J. Anderson)	OTHERS PRESENT:  
	Smith, J. (G. Holton)		Mölder, N. 
	Weber, J.		
	Wisen, C. 		
	Zilberkant, E.		

B.	President's Remarks - Pete Pinney

Pete Pinney will be asking members to assist in serving on a variety of university committees which require faculty members.  

C.	President-Elect Remarks - Abel Bult-Ito

Abel Bult-Ito indicated that he will be responsible for the Senate newsletter next year.  The first issue will include a summary of the actions of the Senate over the past year.  The following three issues will focus on teaching, research, and service.  Any suggestions for future newsletter are welcome.  

XIV	New Senate Business

	A.	Motion to endorse 2003-2004 committee membership, submitted by Administrative Committee 

Abel Bult-Ito indicated that members were placed on committee based on their requests.  Conveners have been identified for all the committee so that we don't have to spend time at this meeting.  Chairs will be elected at the first committee meeting in the fall.  The motion was approved without objection.  

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to endorse the 2003-2004 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.

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

2003 -2004 UAF FACULTY SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

STANDING COMMITTEES

Curricular Affairs
	Carol Barnhardt, SOEd. (05)
	Steve Cysewski, CRA (05)
	Michael Hannigan, CRA (04)
	Susan Herman, SOM (04)
	Mario Kupries, CSEM (05)
	Rainer Newberry, CSEM (04)
	William Schneider, CLA (04)
	Yuri Shur, CSEM (05)
	Jeannette Smith, CLA (05)
	Eduard Zilberkant, CLA (04)

Faculty Affairs
	Mark Box, CLA (04)
	Karen Erickson, CLA (05)
	Joan Leguard, CLA (05), 
	Bret Luick, CRA/CES (04)
	Jenifer McBeath, SALRM (04)
	Peter McRoy, SFOS (04)
	Dan Odess, CLA (04)
	Shirish Patil, SME (04)
	Craig Wisen, SOM (05)

PERMANENT COMMITTEES

Core Review (Elected)
	Jin Brown, Communication, CLA (04)
	Derick Burleson, English, CLA (05)
	Jill Faudree, Math, CSEM (04)
	Mary Goodwin, Humanities, CLA (04)
	Paul McCarthy, Library
	Rainer Newberry, CSEM, Sciences (04) 
	Jonathan Rosenberg, Social Sciences, CLA (05)
	Doug Schamel, Education (04)

Developmental Studies Committee (Elected)
	Judy Atkinson, Interior-Aleutians, CRA (04)
	Jane Allen, Kuskokwim, CRA (05)
	Patty Baldwin, RSS 
	John Bruder, Bristol Bay, CRA (05)
	George Guthridge, Bristol Bay, CRA (05)
	Richard Carr, English, CLA (05)
	John Creed, Chukchi, CRA (04)
	Pat Doak, Sciences (05)
	Kathleen Gustafson, Math, CSEM (04)
	Cindy Hardy, TVC (04)
	Ron Illingworth, Devel. Studies, CRA (04)
	Wanda Martin, Advising Center 
	Joe Mason, Northwest, CRA (04)
	Jane Weber, TVC (04)

Faculty Appeals & Oversight Committee (Elected)
	Gang Chen, SME (04)
	Claudette Engblom-Bradley, SOEd. (04)
	Carol Gold, CLA (04)
	Robert Gorman, CES (05)
	Brian Himelbloom, SFOS (04)
	Allen Morotti, SOEd. (05)
	Paul Layer, CSEM (04)
	Brenda Norcross, SFOS (05)
	Michael Pippenger, SOM (05)
	Julie Riley, CRA/CES (04)
	Hank Wickmann, SOM (04)
	CLA (05)
	CSEM (05)
	SME (05)
	SNRAS (04)
	SNRAS (05)

Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement 
	Gerald Berman, CLA (04)
	Mike Davis, CRA (05)
	Lee Haugen, SOEd. (04), 
	John Kawula, Library 
	Paul McCarthy, CSEM (04)
	Joy Morrison, Faculty Development Office
	Mike Nakoneczny, CLA (05)
	Channon Price, CSEM 
	Larry Roberts, CRA (05)
	Tom Robinson, SOM  
	Shunpu Zhang, CSEM (04)

Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee 
	Abhijit Dandekar, SME (04)
	Mary Erhlander, CLA (04)
	Rolf Gradinger, SFOS (04)
	Maureen Hogan, SOEd (05)
	Zhongo (John) Ma, CSEM (04)
	Christa Mulder, CSEM (04)
	Maribeth Murray, CLA (04)
	Doug Reynolds, SOM (04)
	Jennifer Reynolds, SFOS (05)
	CLA (05)

OTHER:

UAF Governance Coordinating Committee
	Abel Bult-Ito, President-Elect
	Pete Pinney, President

UAF Faculty Alliance Representatives
	Abel Bult-Ito, President-Elect
	Pete Pinney, President
	Gary Holton

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

	B.	Motion to approve the 2003-2004 UAF Faculty Senate meeting calendar, submitted by Administrative Committee 

Abel Bult-Ito indicated that these meeting times and days reflect past practices.  There are three face-to-face meetings and four audio conferenced meetings.  Jenifer McBeath asked about use of the Board of Regents' conference room.  The motion was approved without objection.  

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to adopt the following calendar for its 2003-2004 meetings.

	EFFECTIVE:   	Immediately

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

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

				UAF FACULTY SENATE
					2003-2004
				  Calendar of Meetings

Mtg. # 	Date   	Day    	Time    	Type

117     	9/22/03 	Monday	1:00 p.m.	audioconference

118     	10/27/03 	Monday	1:00 p.m.	face-to-face 

119     	12/8/03	Monday	1:00 p.m.	audioconference

120     	2/2/04	Monday	1:00 p.m.	audioconference

121   	3/1/04	Monday	1:00 p.m.	face-to-face

122    	4/5/04	Monday	1:00 p.m.	audioconference

123   	5/3/04	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 

Abel Bult-Ito stated that this ensure that the Faculty Senate can function during the summer when there are no normal meeting scheduled.  All members will be informed of meetings so they can have input during the meetings.  Pete Pinney noted that any business the Administrative Committee conducts over the summer will be brought back for Faculty Senate approval in the fall.  The motion was approved without objection.  

MOTION:
======

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 2003.  Senators will be kept informed of the Administrative Committee's meetings and will be encouraged to attend and participate in these meetings.

	EFFECTIVE:   	May 5, 2003

	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.

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

XV	Adjournment

	The meeting was adjourned at 3:50 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.