MINUTES
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #117
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2003
Wood Center Carol Brown Ballroom

I	The meeting was called to order by President Pinney at 1:00 p.m.

	A.	ROLL CALL 
	
	Members Present:		Members Absent:
	Allen, J.				Box, M.
	Barnhardt, C.			Dinstel, R.
	Berman, G.   			McBeath, J.
	Bult-Ito, A.  			Shur, Y.
	Cysewski, S.   			
	Davis, M.      			
	Erickson, K. 			
	Gradinger, R. 			OTHERS PRESENT:
	Hannigan, M. 			Anderson, J. 
	Haugen, L.   			Jenny, P. 
	Herman, S.      			Kopacz, E.
	Kupries, M.  			Layer, P. 
	Leguard, J.  			Layral, S.
	Luick, B.   				Lind, M.
	Ma, Z.    				Martin, W. 
	McCarthy, P. 			Reichardt, P.
	McRoy, P.     			Schamel, D.
	Nakaneczny, M.     		Swazo, N. 
	Newberry, R. 			Trabant, T.
	Odess, D. 				
	Patil, S. (Khataniar)		
	Pinney, P.
	Reynolds, J. 
	Roberts, L. 
	Schneider, W. 
	Smith, J.   
	Weber, J.
	Wisen, C. 
	Zilberkant, E.
	Zhang, S. 

	NON-VOTING MEMBERS PRESENT:
	Stickel, T.  - Acting Registrar

	NON-VOTING MEMBERS ABSENT:
	Walker, T.  - President, ASUAF
	Andrews, B.  - Graduate Student, GSO
	O'Neill, R.   - President, UAFSC
	Joseph, B.  - Dean, CRA
	Collins, J. - Dean, CSEM

	B.	The minutes to Meeting #115 (April 7, 2003) and #116 (May 5, 2003) were approved as distributed via e-mail.  

	C.	The agenda was approved as distributed via e-mail with the consent agenda item moved for discussion to the regular agenda and the addition of item VI. C, New Business - Motion on reconciliation committee. 

II	Status of Chancellor's Office Actions
	A.	Motions Approved:
		1.	Motion to approve the Unit Criteria for the 
			School of Management.
		2.	Motion to amend the Reserving Courses for 
			Graduate Programs policy.
		3.	Motion to delete the Emergency Services 
			(formerly Fire Science) Certificate. 
		4.	Motion on mandatory placement policy.
		5.	Motion to approve a statement with the 
			IAS Student Evaluation package.
	B.	Motion Denied: 
		1.	Motion to approve a UAF Policy on Classified and 
			Proprietary Research.

III	Public Comments/Questions - 

Tonya Trabant spoke about the 4th annual Student Leadership Conference to be held on October 18th.  The theme is "Leadership--What Does That Mean to You?"  A guest speaker will be Ginger Stock.  The conference will also feature a forum on campus activism.  Tonya  asked for faculty assistance in encouraging students to participate in the conference.    

Norm Swazo spoke on the policy of classified research.  During the time he was Senate president he initiated campuswide debate on the issue of classified research.  Godwin Chukwu and Pete Pinney have continued that endeavor and moved it forward significantly.  Faculty and administration learned from this process.  The Faculty Affairs Committee and the Ad Hoc Committee on Classified Research both worked very diligently to put together a very constructive solution to what has been a difficult problem.  He is concerned about the Chancellor's statement and the creation of a review committee without proper Senate oversight.  His recommendation to the Faculty Senate is that you vote to establish a reconciliation committee that continues negotiation and reaches a settlement that adequately addresses the issue of a policy on classified research.  

IV	Governance Reports

	A.	President's Comments - Pete Pinney

Pete Pinney indicated that he had invited Pat Pitney to speak on the outcomes based budgeting.  She was unable to attend and Paul Jenny will represent the Office of Budget and Institutional Research.  That office is where most of the discussion on the outcomes based budgeting is being drafted into measures and metrics.  Outcomes based budgeting will be a discussion later in the agenda.  

Pete Pinney indicated there are some matters of concern over rights of faculty under investigation that are being referred to Faculty Affairs and Faculty Appeals & Oversight.  It may be good for the Senate to come up with clarification on Board of Regents' policy 04.07.010.  

The Senate has agreed to assist United Academics in promoting a visit of Jim Richardson from AAUP to speak on Academic Freedom on November 7th.  

Pete Pinney thanked Craig Wisen for taking on the task as Budget Liaison.  He has visited most of the committees and appreciates the volunteerism and activity that is going on, as most of the Senate work is done in committee.  He is also working on one other issue that is before Curricular Affairs which deals with content for syllabi.  

	B.	President-Elect 's Comments - Abel Bult-Ito

Abel Bult-Ito is working on the new Faculty Senate newsletter which will be distributed electronically.  If you have anything you would like to include please let him know.  The first issue should be out at the end of the month.  

He has agreed to channel faculty input on UAF metrics to the Provost's  committee on metrics.  A memo was sent out last week.  He urged everyone to look at them carefully and to give him feedback within the next week or so.  

Abel is also working with Paul Jenny and Pat Pitney to get some information on the UA administrative budget over the last five years.  Last year he did some work on the UAF administrative budget.  He is very happy that Craig Wisen will continue that work.    

	C.	Staff Council - Rory O'Neill

Rory O'Neill was not available for comment.

	D.	ASUAF - Thom Walker

Thom Walker was not available for comment.

	E.	Faculty Liaison - Eva Kopacz

Eva Kopacz is the academic liaison in the president's office to the  statewide administration.  The purpose of the liaison is to represent  faculty perspective to the statewide administration and to let faculty know about issues that are being discussed there that are important to have their input on.  An item that is being addressed by the Curricular Affairs Committee is the GPA calculation for honors to include courses taken at all MAU's.  Another issue you will be hearing more about is an academic freedom of speech policy to be presented to the Board of Regents' for inclusion in BOR policy.  

The Faculty Survey results are up on the web.  (see: http://www.alaska.edu/hr/hractivities/index.xml)   They generally found that the more senior faculty members were concerned about the direction of the university and communication.  Staff were generally more positive.  Preparedness of students was perceived more negatively than the national average.  There was a low perception of the effectiveness of governance.  

The Board of Regents' met last week and the actions of the board are available on their web site.  She encouraged faculty to look at the actions of the Board.  Of note was the approval of a 10% tuition rate increase; a change in residency policy; approval of the WRRB; increase to the staff salary grid.  There are a number of discussions that you will want to follow regarding cost saving with the potential budget shortage coming up.  

Peter McRoy asked how the faculty survey will be used.  

V	A.	Remarks by Chancellor, Marshall Lind - 

Chancellor Lind followed up on the question on the faculty survey.  They are looking at ways to use the results of the survey effectively.  It comes down to improving communication.  There are some things that can be improved.  Obviously some unhappiness is related to salary.  The parking mess is also reflected in the survey.  Debra Damron in University Relations is taking on the communication issue.  

Chancellor Lind encouraged faculty to come to the Convocation on Tuesday at 1:00 p.m.  An Ice Cream social will take place prior to the convocation.  The program will include President Hamilton, Pete Pinney, Rory O'Neill, and Thom Walker.  

We are off to a very good start this semester.  Across the MAU in enrollment there is a good growth, the head count will probably exceed 8%.  Student credit hours will probably be a 65 % increase from last fall.  Very likely at the end of the semester we will exceed 10,000 student headcount.  There is an increase in housing with 98% utilization.  We will have to accelerate our plans to look for additional  housing.  In addition they will be looking at a plan to examine all the student services provided.  We need to look at the bookstore arrangement.  There is a need to look at how we can expand food service in Wood Center and look at the Lola Tilly Commons to accommodate the bookstore and make that a center to provide services to students.  

Chancellor Lind suggested that faculty look at the actions of the Board of Regents meeting.  They approved a funding mechanism to continue  the West Ridge Research Building.  It is on a fast track and the will be open in Spring 2004.  The BICS building may be dependent on a general obligation bond.  

The budget will be the big issue this year.  There are some things beyond our control.  One is the increased cost of health care and insurance.  The second is increases in the retirement funds.  This will lead to an increase in the costs for the university.  A number of things need to be worked out.  There is a lot of momentum and enthusiasm for the University.  A lot of very good things are happening.  This will require efforts to be working together--various governance groups with the administration and statewide. 

Terry Vrabec, the chief of police, indicates there is a rash of thefts.  People are walking into offices and taking loose items and going into unlocked cars.  He cautioned everyone to keep things locked up and to report suspicious activity to security.  

Peter McRoy asked about the retirement of Chancellor Lind.  Lind responded that in terms of replacement details are not out yet.  There are two Chancellor positions open.  There will be a search committee and there will probably be a search firm hired to assist with the process. 

Eva Kopacz indicated that the UAA process is a broad based committee that includes 50% faculty.  The Senate president has worked closely with statewide in giving recommendations for groups of people to be involved in the search.  

	B.	Remarks by Provost, Paul Reichardt -

Provost Reichardt indicated that another position that is open is the Vice Provost for Research.  Ted DeLaca is leaving October 2004.  They are looking at the current duties of that position and working on a job description.  

The summary report of the 2002-2003 faculty reviews is included in the agenda.  Under observations is a comment on difficult cases.  This refers to cases in which there is no consensus on a yes or no.  It could be that at different levels there have been different recommendations or a each level there was uncertainty about which way to go.   These were discussed with the University-wide committee after their deliberations were done. 

VI	Consent Agenda

	A.	Motion to confirm membership on the Ad Hoc Committee on Unit Criteria, submitted by Administrative Committee

The motion was moved off the consent agenda for further discussion.  Abel Bult-Ito asked that the committees appoint an alternate that can serve if a committee member has criteria from their unit up for discussion.  This will avoid any conflict of interest.  Dan Odess indicated that half of the proposed membership is from Anthropology which will be forwarding criteria this year.  The motion was approved as amended without objection.

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to confirm the membership on the Ad Hoc Committee on Unit Criteria consisting of one member and alternate from each of the following committees:  Curricular Affairs; Faculty Affairs; Faculty Development, Assessment, and Improvement; and Faculty Appeals & Oversight Committee.

	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately

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

AD HOC COMMITTEE ON UNIT CRITERIA

Curricular Affairs - Jeannette Smith
Faculty Affairs - Dan Odess 
Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement - Shunpu Zhang
Faculty Appeals & Oversight - Julie Riley

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

VII	New Business

	A.	Motion to amend the Academic Bankruptcy policy, submitted by Curricular Affairs

Rainer Newberry indicated that this motion is to change the name so that it is not so offensive.  The motion was approved without objection.

MOTION:  
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the "Academic Bankruptcy for Returning Students" policy (Pg. 13-14, 2003-04 Catalog) as follows:

CAPS = additions
[[  ]]  = deletions

[[Academic Bankruptcy]] FRESH START for Returning Students

If you performed at an academic level that made you ineligible to continue your studies at UAF and dropped out or were dismissed from school, [[academic bankruptcy]] FRESH START can offer you a new undergraduate [[start]] BEGINNING.  You may apply for readmission on the basis that your prior academic record be disregarded.  You begin your college study again with no credits attempted, no credits earned and no quality points reflected in subsequent grade point average calculations.  You may use [[academic bankruptcy]] FRESH START only once.	

To declare [[academic bankruptcy]] FRESH START, you must submit an Application for [[Academic Bankruptcy]] FRESH START form.  Before applying for admission on this basis, at least two years must have elapsed since the end of the last full-time semester you attended.  [[Academic bankruptcy]] FRESH START application forms are available at the Admissions [[or Registrar's]] office.  DISCUSSING THIS OPTION WITH AN ACADEMIC ADVISOR IS RECOMMENDED SHOULD OTHER COURSES OF ACTION BE APPROPRIATE.

Your prior academic record remains a part of your overall academic record and appears on your transcript, but none of the credits you earned previously can be used in your new program.  The only time these credits will be included in GPA calculations is for graduation with honors (See Graduation with Honors).  [[You may be allowed advanced standing or a waiver of requirements just as any non-bankrupt student, but you won't be allowed credit by examination for courses lost in bankruptcy]].

EFFECTIVE:  	Fall 2004

RATIONALE: 	The faculty committee who participated and 
	developed the Early Warning Program made several 
	recommendations for improving or simplifying terms and 
	procedures for UAF students.  The intent with this motion is 
	to provide a more positive framework for a process that is 
	currently in place and support the "paradigm shift from a 
	punitive approach to customer service modality that 
	incorporates a commitment to developing a personal 
	connection to the student."

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

	B.	Motion to establish a Faculty Travel Committee, submitted by Faculty Development, Assessment, & Improvement

Paul McCarthy indicated that this motion is to assist the Faculty Development Office in approving the use of faculty development travel funds.  Abel Bult-Ito proposed a friendly amendment to the motion to make the Faculty Travel Committee a subcommittee of the Faculty Development, Assessment, & Improvement Committee.  Paul McCarthy indicated that was the intent of the motion.  The motion as amended was unanimously approved.  

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate, upon recommendation of the Faculty Development, Assessment, and Improvement Committee, moves to establish a Faculty Travel Committee AS A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE FACULTY DEVELOPMENT, ASSESSMENT & IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE.  This committee will assist the Office of Faculty Development in the evaluation of faculty development travel funding requests, and will be charged with setting the procedures for submitting requests and the criteria for evaluating requests.

	EFFECTIVE:      Immediately

	RATIONALE:      Currently, faculty development travel requests 
		are submitted to the Office of Faculty Development on 
		an ad hoc basis and reviewed on a case-by-case basis.  
		This is a very cumbersome process for the Office of 
		Faculty Development Director and also does not allow for 
		careful planning of the budget.  This motion establishes 
		a Faculty Travel Committee, which will set rules for 
		submissions of travel funding requests, set guidelines by 
		which those requests will be reviewed, and assist the 
		Office of Faculty Development in the review of those 
		requests.

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

C.	Motion on reconciliation committee.  

Pete Pinney indicated that the process for reviewing any motion that is vetoed by the Chancellor is to submit it to a reconciliation committee for further review.  This needs a two-thirds vote of the Senate.  If the Senate feels strongly about a policy on classified research this review should follow Senate policy and include involvement of Senate members.  

Bill Schneider asked for clarification on the Chancellor's memo regarding restriction on disclosure and dissemination of research results.  Chancellor Lind spoke about possible conflict due to restrictions of publication.  The issue is that there is no University regulation that corresponds to existing Regents' policy.  The proposed policy was submitted to General Council for a legal opinion.  The Chancellor indicated that he was willing to work with a reconciliation committee.  He wants a policy that will work for us.  His concern is to get the matter resolved.

Provost Reichardt indicated that the bigger question is the proprietary nature of any academic based research that has restrictions on publication. 

Abel Bult-Ito indicated that the difference in what the Chancellor recommends and what the Senate is asking is that there be Faculty Senate membership and oversight on a committee that reviews classified and proprietary research proposals.  

The motion passed with one nay and no other objection.  

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to refer to a Reconciliation Committee for further review the veto by the Chancellor of the Classified Research Policy passed at its May 5, 2003 meeting.  

	Effective:   	Immediately

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

VIII	Committee Reports 

	A.	Curricular Affairs - R. Newberry

A report was attached to the agenda.  The following additional minutes from the September 15th meeting were distributed as a handout.

Minutes of Committee on Curricular Affairs, Sept. 15  2003, 2-3:30
Woods Center Conference Room B

Present:  Carol Barnhardt, Eduard Zilberkant, Jeannette  Smith, Mario Kupries, Rainer Newberry, Stephen Cysewski, Susan  Herman, Bill Schneider, Gayle Gregory, Wanda Martin, Mike Hannigan (by phone), Yuri Shur, and Susan Blalock 

1.  Meeting began with prayer: "Oh God, let’s get out of here by 3:30".

2.  Susan Blalock introduced herself as the permanent substitute for Dean Phyllis Morrow of CLA, and ex-Officio (but voting?) member of the committee.  Clarification sought.

3.  Bill Schneider brought up problems w/ freshman athletes; issue postponed as part of agenda item 4 (excused absences).

4.  Motion to change "Academic Bankruptcy" to "Fresh Start" unanimously passed.  Actual motion as amended was submitted as a Senate agenda item.

5.  Request to modify honors calculation, as forwarded by Pete Pinney.  The committee agreed in spirit (after 'affect' changed to 'effect') but recognized need for a specific motion to create the specific catalog changes.   Gayle Gregory pointed out that there was some ambiguity in how specifically this should be done.  Gayle agreed to communicate with Pete concerning precise proposed wording changes and then propose those catalog changes for the next meeting.

6.  Syllabus template.  The committee agreed that there was no obvious way to enforce syllabus ‘minimum’ contents, but that an attempt should be made to at least bring the subject to faculty attention.  Clear examples posted in some easily-accessible website was also proposed (education vs. threats).   After discussion, the committee agree in principal to forwarding a motion to the Faculty senate of the form: ‘a course syllabus at UAF should contain the following…’  It also agreed that the following (kindly supplied by Susan Herman) was a good start for this list:

Heading with name and number of course and semester the course is offered.
Details: name of instructor, office address and phone number, e-mail address, office hours, time and place of course meeting.
Required Reading
Expected Student Outcomes (must be specific course goals)
Grading scheme.  How will grades be determined?
Course Outline (activities and due dates for each class meeting)
Students with Disabilities notice.  Suggested text: Students with learning or other disabilities who may need classroom accommodations are encouraged to visit the Disabilities website at http://www.uaf.edu/chc/Disability.htm and make an appointment with the Office of Disability Services (474-7043).  Please meet with me during office hours so that we can collaborate with the Office of Disability Services to provide the appropriate accommodations and supports to assist you in meeting the goals of the course.  
UAF Honor Code.  Suggested text:  As a UAF student, you are subject to the student Code of Conduct.  The university assumes that the integrity of each student and of the student body as a whole will be upheld.  It is your responsibility to help maintain the integrity of the student community. For additional information, contact the Dean of Student Services or web http://www.alaska.edu/bor/regulation/9r/ r09-02.html/ or refer to the student handbook printed in the back of the class schedule for each semester. 

Finally, Carol Barnhardt agreed to speak to Pete Pinney about what other Faculty Senate committees were pursuing this topic and to serve as the liaison to these other committees.  If possible, a formal motion would be brought forward for the next meeting.

7.  Excused Absences.  There were three major issues raised.  The first was the draft change in catalog wording, as proposed at the end of last spring by the faculty oversight committee:  "If you are required to participate in military or other mandatory activities, you must notify your instructor before your absence.  You and your instructor should make a good faith effort to assure that you are permitted to make up any work you have missed and not be unduly penalized for your absence.  If suitable arrangements cannot be made, you will be allowed to withdraw from the course without penalty."   The committee agreed to the need for a change and to the general thrust of the draft.  They felt, however (1) 'other mandatory' needs clarification and (2) a sentence should be added to the effect that 'all scheduled absences should be brought to the instructor’s attention during the first week of classes'.   Rainer agreed to communicate these ideas to the chairman of the faculty oversight committee.
	The second issue is that of 'good faith efforts' and 'not unduly penalized', which clearly are up to instructor’s discretion.  To what extent must course instructors make allowances for UAF-mandatory absences (e.g., athletes)?   This is clearly an ugly gray area, and one that leads to the third issue, namely, how do athletes pick courses for which absences will be least problematic?
	Bill and Wanda spoke of several recent encounters with freshman student athletes that experienced course/advising difficulties.  To avoid future problems, it would be best if course instructors knew considerably in advance that student athletes would be missing some/many classes in order to plan around such absences.  It was unclear to the committee members exactly how the athletics department deals with such issues.  Wanda indicated that Tavis MacMillan was the individual who dealt with such problems.  Bill volunteered to ask Mr. MacMillan to our next meeting to hear his perspectives on the issue.  The committee agreed to this proposal. 

8.  Listserv.  Susan Herman brought this up as a potentially simpler way to communicate among committee members.  The sense of the committee was 'sure, why not?' and informally asked Susan to approach the appropriate people to set things up.

9.  Bookstore.  Carol asked if other faculty experienced unusual difficulties with the Bookstore this semester.  Some said yes.  Rainer said he’d check with Pete about what committee (if any) this issue should deal with this.

10.  Late withdraw.  Susan noted that she had received several requests this semester for students requesting late withdraw from the previous (spring) semester.  She was concerned that the system was being used improperly.  We discussed the conditions under which such should be considered and how these ought to be stated somewhere…
 
11. With a few minutes to spare, we adjourned…until…

Next meeting to be held Monday, Sept 29, 2 p.m., Wood Center Conference Room B.

	B.	Faculty Affairs - P. McRoy

A report was attached to the agenda.  Peter McRoy asked if Faculty Affairs should get involved in the faculty survey.  

	C.	Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee – C. Mulder

A report was attached to the agenda.  The following additional minutes from the September 19th meeting were distributed as a handout.

GAAC Meeting, Sept. 19 2003, 3:35 pm-5:00 p.m.

Present:  C. Koverola, C. Mulder, D. Reynolds, D. Stephens, M. Erhlander, M. Murray, S. Henrichs, J. Ma, G. Gregory, C. McAlpin,  R. Gradinger, A. Dandekar, J. Reynolds.

1)	Three course proposals for trial courses were distributed for evaluation : EE 694 (Topics in Wireless Communication), CHEM 494/694 (Molecular modeling), and GEOS 494/694 (Remote sensing of the cryosphere).

2)	Maribeth raised the issue of whether a graduate student registering for a stacked 400/600 level course could take the course at the 400 level.  It was generally agreed that this was not the intent of stacked courses.  This issue had been discussed before in the context of course costs (graduate student credits are more expensive than undergraduate ones).  There was general agreement that there should be a line in the catalogue stating that a graduate student should take a stacked course at the graduate level.  However, since it was also felt that more input should be allowed, it was tabled until next week with the intention of developing a motion if no objections are received.

3)	We discussed the issue of whether a graduate student who has a tuition waiver (usually for 9 credits) can take a course that is clearly outside of their main degree program.  Points raised included:

	a.	Would the university actually benefit financially if students would not be allowed to take the course, or would students simply not take the course if they had to pay for it themselves?
	b.	Does being able to take the occasional course for pleasure or other personal goals increase retention?
	c.	How big an issue is this?
	d.	How does one decide which courses are reasonably considered part of the degree program, and who checks up on this?

It was felt that it wasn't possible to decide whether this is a trivial issue that is not worth establishing new guidelines for until we have some hard data (how many students, how many credits, etc.).  Crystal stated that the graduate school is working on getting that information, so further discussion was tabled until the information becomes available.  

4)	We discussed the discrepancy between the university catalogue requirements for the number of credits required for a project (6) versus those of several individual departments (3 or 3-6).  Several people pointed out that in their program (e.g. Economics, Psychology), a 3-credit option was preferred because it allowed the students to take all the recommended/desirable courses for that degree.  Others argued that in their department a minimum of 6 would be considered necessary.  We agreed that programs appeared to have different needs for the project, and that given that there are multiple programs that are currently out of compliance with the university regulations, it would make more sense to change the university requirements to 3-6 credits.  Christa will write up a draft recommendation to the Senate (with additional justification provided by others), to be circulated before the next meeting.

5)	We discussed the need for a consistent university-wide policy for graduate student "good standing" or "status".  There are at least two separate issues:

	a.	BCIS requires the university to report for each foreign student whether he/she is in good standing or not.  
	b.	There are currently problems with removing students from programs even when they are clearly not progressing, because there is no clear written policy regarding under what conditions students are no longer maintaining good status.  There is also no clear procedure for how students should be dismissed or a mechanism for appeal.  University lawyers have stated that if any of the catalogue requirements are waived for anyone (e.g. the maximum 7 years for a master’s degree) then it can no longer be used as grounds for dismissal.  

We discussed the CSEM draft policy, but failed to come to any quick agreement on what to do.  We will continue to discuss this issue during the next meeting, with the aim of deciding whether the current catalogue requirements (3.0 GPA, continuous registration) should be changed, at least with respect to BCIS notification requirements.  

Our next meeting is scheduled for Oct 3, 2003.

	D.	Core Review - D. Schamel

The following report was distributed as a handout. 

Core Review Committee
Report of activities
Submitted by Douglas Schamel, Chair

Members present:  Jin Brown, Derick Burleson, Mary Goodwin, Paul McCarthy, Douglas Schamel, Jill Faudree, Rainer Newberry, Jonathan Rosenberg
Ex-officio members present:  Sukumar Bandopadhyay, Sue McHenry
Visitors:  Wanda Martin, Carol Gold, Pete Pinney

The Core Review Committee met on 9 September and 22 September.  I will combine the two meetings in this report.

1)  Douglas Schamel was elected as Chair.

2)  We acted on four petitions: one was approved and three were not approved.

3)  A letter was sent to all deans and directors, requesting them to examine all "W" and "O" course syllabi for statements explaining how the course met the "O" or "W" requirements.  We requested that flawed syllabi be corrected.

4)  Assessment of Core science courses will be postponed from Fall to Spring semester.  CSEM faculty representatives will work with Dean Henrichs to streamline assessment instruments.

5)  The committee voted to begin a conversation about the philosophy of the UAF Core curriculum.  Although it is desirable to discuss the entire Core, we will begin with a discussion of the "Perspectives on the Human Condition".   The committee felt strongly that the conversation should begin with representatives from departments currently offering "Perspectives" courses.  We will discuss the logistics this issue at our next meeting, 6 October, 0915-1015.

6)  We were reminded by ex-Chair Jin Brown that information about the Core curriculum exists on the UAF website.  This material should be required reading for faculty prior to entering into a conversation about the nature of the Core curriculum at UAF.  Jin also pointed out that we need to work with the Provost's Office to update this website to reflect changes made to the Core.

	E.	Curriculum Review - W. Schneider

The committee has not yet met, no report was given. 

	F.	Developmental Studies - J. Weber

The committee has not met, no report was given. 

	G.	Faculty Appeals & Oversight - P. Layer

Two reports were attached to the agenda.  There are five administrators in Group B to be reviewed this year and one administrator in Group A.  They will be looking for volunteers to serve on the various administrator reviews.

	H.	Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement – P. McCarthy

A report was attached to the agenda. 

IX	Discussion Items

	A.	Outcomes Based Budgeting

	Guest Speaker - Paul Jenny, Associate Director, SW Budget & Institutional Research

Paul Jenny indicated that in general what we are looking at is a migration from our current budgeting process to more of an outcomes based approach across the system.  It will allow an alignment of systemwide budget planning with the goals in the Board of Regents' strategic plan.  There are seven goals:  student success, educational quality, research excellence, faculty and staff strength, technology and facilities improvement, responsiveness to state needs, and revenue diversification.  What this process is trying to do is develop and recognize key outcomes to ensure the success that we can reach those goals.  To get there is a long process.  They are looking at a three year interim process as these outcomes are developed and reviewed by SAC, the Business Council, Faculty Senate, other governance groups, and up to the President's cabinet.  Once those outcomes are approved by the President, there will be annual performance targets associated with each MAU.  While it's appropriate for the President to set those outcomes and to work with the Chancellors to set those target, the activities of each MAU to achieve the outcomes is the purview of the campus itself.  There is no way that the system administrative office can dictate what activities a university should do to achieve its goals.  Right now we are looking at five outcomes that are being reviewed:  high demand job areas in responsiveness to state needs, diversification of revenue, student success, educational quality, and research.  Those are five draft outcomes they are looking at now.  In total a fully formed system would have no more than 20 outcomes.  Those outcomes are really driven by what faculty, staff, and administration think.  Faculty are in the best position to recognize what are those key outcomes we should do as a university system to ensure the success of the university.    There is a lot of information on the web site which is referenced in the agenda.  

The State of Alaska is also migrating to a similar performance based approach.  The decision for the university to look and to move in this direction were done well in advance of the state's decision.  That puts us in a position to steer and create our own agenda.  The state is looking for our leadership.  It's much better for the university to tell the state how we should be measured and how we should look at our outcomes.  They have two stated philosophy's on their web site--results first; resources last, and a spin off what you measure is what you get or if it doesn't get measured, it doesn't get funded.  

Pete Pinney indicated that the Faculty Alliance and SAC have been working with Paul Jenny and Pat Pitney on these measures.  While statewide is attempting to get a snapshot of the system to present to it's constituents, the MAU's do the work.  What they see is that it's important to keep the language in at MAU level.  We need to stay involved in the process or others will dictate what is going to come down.  Eva Kopacz indicated that one outcome that will be critical for  faculty to be involved in is educational quality.  

Peter McRoy spoke about the high demand job listing.  He felt that it was nonsense.  It did not include the low demand jobs or specialists that can only be created by a university.  We have some very specialized kind of intellectual capabilities that can't be done anywhere else.  With respect to the increase in research funds, part of that is not in our hands.  There are realities of funding.  Paul Jenny asked what are the appropriate measures for research.  This is why we need faculty, staff, and administrators involved in the process to measure  the outcomes for the university.  

Bill Schneider stated what needs to drive this university is a closer look at what we are uniquely qualified to do and what we are in the position to do that other places are not in a position to do.  And what do we have a track record in having done.  That should be part of the equation whether the legislature buys it or not.  

Susan Herman indicated that as long as we are aware that our mission is to create intellectual faculty as well as human resources, we will probably be working in the right track.  Brett Luick stated that this is a land grant college and as such we have an obligation as well as an outreach extension obligation.  The list does not address those obligations.  

Abel Bult-Ito indicated that both him and Pete as part of the Faculty Alliance have fought hard to get faculty involved.  The way the structure looks now is that the Faculty Alliance will initially look at the proposals, get feedback to the appropriate administrative councils, and then the Faculty Senate will forward those documents to you for further comments.  It will depend on faculty input whether we get a voice.  He encouraged everyone to participate fully in the process.  

Dan Odess said that one problem is that the process can be time consuming.  Paul Reichardt indicated that there is a 10-20% service component on most faculty workloads.  We must decide what is the priority for that service obligation.

Pete Pinney encouraged everyone to look at the web sites.  Paul Jenny indicated that the current five outcomes are on the web site.  You can see other ideas from faculty across the system and if you agree or disagree.  Or if there is an oversight on something you think is key to the mission that needs to be addressed.  An email comment is fine.  Other institutions have developed systems like this within higher education.  Berkeley has done something similar within parts of their campus.  Pete Pinney asked that if you see something that would lead to unintended consequences by trying to measure something, that would be helpful to know. 

X	Members' Comments/Questions - none

X	Adjournment

	The meeting was adjourned at 2:55 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.