MINUTES
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #118
MONDAY, OCTOBER 27, 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. (J. Creed)		Barnhardt, C.
	Berman, G.   			Dinstel, R.
	Box, M.   				Erickson, K.
	Bult-Ito, A.  			Gradinger, R.
	Cysewski, S.   			McBeath, J.
	Davis, M.      			McRoy, P.
	Hannigan, M. (D. Moses)  	Shur, Y.
	Haugen, L.   			Zilberkant, E.
	Herman, S.      			
	Kupries, M.  			
	Leguard, J.  			OTHERS PRESENT:
	Luick, B.   				Duffy, L. 
	Ma, Z.    				Kingsley, A. 
	McCarthy, P. 			Knavel, B.
	Nakaneczny, M.  			Knox, J.
	Newberry, R. 			Kopacz, E.
	Odess, D. 				Layer, P. 
	Patil, S. 				Layral, S.
	Pinney, P.				Tragis, T. 
	Reynolds, J. 
	Roberts, L. 
	Schneider, W. 			
	Smith, J.   				
	Weber, J.				
	Wisen, C. 				
	Zhang, S. 				

	NON-VOTING MEMBERS PRESENT:	
	Steadman, J. - President-Elect, UAFSC
	Collins, J. - Dean, SOM
	Stickel, T.  - Acting Registrar

	NON-VOTING MEMBERS ABSENT:
	Walker, T.  - President, ASUAF
	Graduate Student, GSO
	Joseph, B.  - Dean, CRA

	B.	The minutes to Meeting #117 (September 22, 2003) were approved as distributed via e-mail.  

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

II	Status of Chancellor's Office Actions
	A.	Motions approved: 
		1.	Motion to amend the Academic Bankruptcy 
			for Returning Students' policy.
	B.	Motions pending:  none

III	Public Comments/Questions -

A.	Tori Tragis, University Relations - Emergency Preparedness  

Tori Tragis spoke about the need to prepare for emergencies.  The University as an institution has developed a Crisis Communication Plan.  Each unit/department should have its own response plan.  It should include two components:  1) the physical response, and 2) dissemination of information. 

Emergencies can occur at any time and without warning.  Careful planning with an emphasis on safety will assist UAF community members in responding appropriately to crises and emergencies.  Each department should have a plan for dealing with an emergency.

The University of Alaska Fairbanks has established a recorded emergency information hotline at 474-7UAF (474-7823).  Media as well as the public should call this number for information and updates on emergency or unusual events affecting the campus including holiday closures and weather- and safety-related issues.  In the event of an emergency, additional information may be available at the UAF Newsroom (www.uaf.edu/news) and by fax or e-mail. 

UAF is committed to creating a safe environment for students, staff, faculty and the public, and to assisting the media in keeping the public informed as important emergency events unfold. 

To review safety procedures online for building evacuation, fire, earthquake and other emergencies visit:  www.uaf.edu/safety/safetyprepardness.htm (Campus Safety and Preparedness)

For additional information visit:  www.uaf.edu/univrel/crisisplan/ (Crisis Communication Plan) and www.uaf.edu/safety/EOP.doc (Emergency Operations Plan)

Handouts are available from University Relations. 

B.	Jo Knox & Brenda Knavel, Division of Computing and Communication - 

The Division of Computing and Communication is in the planning phase of replacing/upgrading Aurora (UAF's email server) and Zorba (UAF's web server).  We already have the machines which are 2 dual 3 Ghz Xeon processor HP computers.  Each will be connected to UAF's Storage Area Network (SAN) and will have 200- 300 GB of storage.  The new machines will have Gigabit Ethernet connections to the network.  Aurora will have 4GB of memory, which is double what the current Aurora has.  Zorba will have 2GB of memory, which is 3-1/2 times more than the current Zorba.  We are looking at clustering the new machines, which means there will be 2 machines running at the same time ready to provide the service.  If machine A goes down, machine B takes over for it without interruption in service to the customer.

Software on Aurora:
	The new Aurora will be strictly an email server.  The current statistics packages and compilers will remain on the current Aurora machine, which will be renamed Nanook.
	We will no longer be supporting POP (Post Office Protocol) on the new Aurora.  We will continue supporting IMAP (Internet Mail Access Protocol) which is more efficient than POP.
	We are evaluating a new webmail package.  We will have 4 or 5 packages for users to evaluate and a survey to respond to, to assist DC&C in choosing one or two best products.
	We are discussing eliminating shell access to the server.
	We are discussing eliminating Pine as an email client on the server.

Software on Zorba:
	We are planning on maintaining all of the current software on Zorba today and adding support for XML, Java, and a shopping cart.

C.	Larry Duffy spoke in favor of the amendment to the Master's Degree requirements increasing the flexibility of credits for projects.  He spoke against the motion requiring that graduate student must enroll at the 600-level for any stacked courses.  Academically this is okay, but it will have a big financial impact.  This will affect the funds available to pay for TA tuition waivers and RA research grants.  This will have a financial impact on the sciences and may lower our ability to increase our number of graduate students in the future.

D.	Ilana Kingsley commented on the proposed changes to the Aurora server.  She would not like to see Pine and shell access go away.  

IV	Governance Reports

	A.	President's Comments - Pete Pinney

Pete Pinney reported that he has a call into Jim Johnsen regarding the status of the UAF Chancellor Search Committee.  It will mirror the UAA committee.  It will have seven faculty (one from UAA), four administrative, two staff, possibly more than two community members, one alumni, and one statewide member.  They will contract with a firm to help with recruitment.  We should have further details next week.  

He reported to the Board of Regents as spokesperson from Faculty Alliance.  The Alliance will send a resolution in support of the Faculty Liaison position as a valuable tool for infusing faculty perspective in the statewide discussions.  Faculty need to be more involved in the creation of future surveys.  

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

Abel Bult-Ito reported on a meeting with Pat Pitney and Paul Jenny from the Statewide Budget Development and Institutional Research office in July.  He asked them for information about the Statewide Administration detailing increases in expenditures over the last several years.  Jeff Swartz, Statewide Budget Analyst, sent him a statewide expenditures memo on September 29th, which is included as an attachment to today's agenda.  Abel highlighted a few issues learned from this report and discussed some follow-up questions.

•	Statewide institutional support, comparable to administrative costs, accounts for 34.55% of total institutional support at the University of Alaska in FY99, while this was 38.13% in FY03.  This is an increase of 3.58% or $2.63 million.  
•	This was due to statewide institutional support (26.76%) increasing 3.13-fold more than that at the academic MAUs (8.56%; UAF + UAA + UAS) from FY99 to FY03.  
•	The President's budget increased from $580,500 in FY99 to $1,316,100 in FY03; a 2.27-fold increase.
•	Please look at Tables 1 and 2 of the statewide expenditures memo.  In table one, research is a faculty enterprise.  Now lets see how much money was allocated to the UA system subtracting statewide funds and research:  It only increased 29.3% compared to 38.3% at statewide.  Taken together with his report last May that UAF administrative budgets have increased 3.5-fold over that of academic funds, he is prepared to say, supported by the data, that UAF and UA administrations are getting top heavy.  Therefore any cuts next year should predominantly fall within the administrative ranks.

Abel also spoke about the budget liaison report presented to the Faculty Senate during meeting #116 on May 5, 2003.  He would like to request, from Provost Reichardt and Chancellor Lind, a written rationale for the 3.5-fold higher increase of administrative costs compared to academic costs at UAF.  He hopes that they can present their response to the Faculty Senate at the next meeting.

Gary Holton, Pete Pinney, and Abel Bult-Ito are on the committee representing the faculty on the Provost's Committee on Metrics.  Abel would like to thank faculty members Sue Hills, Norm Swazo, Jeff Freymueller, Eric Heyne, Kevin Winker, Matt Nolan, Cecile Lardon, and Dani Raap for providing very helpful and thoughtful comments.  Gary, Pete, and Abel will continue to update you on the progress of these UAF outcomes measures and request input on subsequent drafts.  The Provost has decided that in the first round UAF is going to focus on three areas:  high demand job programs, research, and student enrollment.  How these are going to be reconciled with the sets of measures you all had an opportunity to comment on is not clear.

Some comments on how the outcomes based budget process is going;
•	Faculty has really not been involved:  reference the flow diagrams and the 20 October 2003 memo from Pat Pitney
•	The current proposed measures are all economic measures and do not measure academic performance
•	The question is to what extent do you believe we should send the SW administration a message that finds this process unacceptable.  Abel is willing to craft a resolution that will point out the deficiencies in the current process and that we reject the current process unless we get a structural decision making role in the process.  Would you support such a resolution?  Should he forward this to Faculty Affairs to get it ready for the next Faculty Senate meeting?

Jim Collins pointed out there are significant concern among the academic deans that they have not had input into these outcome measures.  He is concern about that and feels that we are being handed these on a plate and being asked to accept them.  There are some measures that he would agreed with, but when we measure scholarship simply on the dollar amount of grants received and not look at publications or other measures it concerns him.  The academic deans need to be a bit more forceful in this regard and the faculty has to as well.   Another factor is that we have a number of outcomes and no inputs to compare them against.  

Steve Cysewski spoke about the goals assigned to the high demand job areas and he has no clue how they are going to contribute that amount of interest in that amount of time with the resources available.  

Abel Bult-Ito indicated that he will start drafting an outcomes measure for administrative effectiveness applicable to all levels of administration, because it appears that the UAF and statewide administrations are currently not interested in assessing their own performance.  He will again request input from the senators as well as from other faculty members.  This outcomes measure will be presented to the Faculty Senate for approval.  He would also like to involve the Provost's Council and ask them for input, so that hopefully we can come up with a measure that has broad support.  When approved at UAF, it will be forward it to the Faculty Alliance for their consideration for possible implementation at the Statewide level as well.  The effectiveness of the administration can significantly stimulate or impede faculty efforts.  So, therefore, any set of metrics should include an assessment of the effectiveness of the administration of the units involved.  More explicitly, the faculty are the university because we do the teaching and research and provide service to the community and the university.  The administration's role should be a supportive role of the faculty, but not to serve its own interests.  We have to get the message across that the outcomes based measures really measure administrative effectiveness.  We should adopt the assumption that if units/programs are not doing well, the faculty did not get enough support from the administration to do their job well.  He thinks this approach will make the administration a little bit more cautious about their goals and expectations for this process.

On other items the Faculty Senate Newsletter is now posted on the governance web site.  Please read it and provide feedback.  Especially, how effective is the electronic format compared to the hardcopy we provided last year?  Abel is a little concerned that the electronic newsletter may not be read as much as the hardcopy.

The upcoming newsletter will focus on liberal arts education.   Abel would like all of you to participate in answering the following questions:  What is the value of a liberal arts education?  Can we measure this value, and if so, how?  And if not, why not?  Please forward your thoughts to him at ffab@uaf.edu.

Finally, the 2-year self-study progress report was turned in to the Accreditation Commission.  This report addressed staff and faculty handbooks, student records, related instruction components of applied certificate and associate degree programs, and program review - assessment of student learning.

For the budget next year the best we can do is a 2.5% cut if the legislature gives us a 5% increase.  If we have flat funding we are looking at another 5% cut.  The provost is requesting input from the deans and directors on how they are going to deal with these budget challenges.  

At the Faculty Alliance retreat recently held with President Hamilton he remarked that he considered sending out pink slips to faculty members who had been here for less than two years.  That was vetoed by the Provost and Chancellor.  But, pink slips for those who have been here less than one year could still appear in February.   

Abel reported that some statements by Paul Reichardt about how we are going to change our institution to deal with a $25 million shortfall include the number of classes per faculty member could be increased.  We could be more stringent on tenure and therefore have less people receive tenure and have more flexibility to play with faculty lines.  We could enforce class enrollment limits.  We could consider no general fund moneys for research salaries, so anyone with a joint appointment with a research institute might have to fund that salary from soft money.  He made a point that the quality is not necessarily proportional to the number of faculty in a unit. 

	C.	Staff Council - Josh Steadman

Josh Steadman, President-Elect of the Staff Council provided a report.  The Staff Council held their last meeting on October 17th.  They are getting information out to staff on the budget and health care issues.  They will be trying to hold e-mail polling with member to finish up business.  Staff Council elections for the even numbered units will be held in November.  Some of the issues that they are looking at is trying to get the consumer index for staff. One thing they are trying to do is get more information posted on the web. One motion they will be acting on is to change the name of the ad hoc committee on Diversity and Tolerance to Workplace Ethics.   

Another event they are working on is a vendor day for health care issues.  This will be informational for faculty and staff and will be held in the spring.  

	D.	ASUAF - Thom Walker

Not available for a report. 

	GSO - Ben Andrews

Not available for a report. 

	E.	Faculty Liaison - Eva Kopacz

Eva Kopacz commented on the retreat and the context of what Provost Reichardt said as possible ideas for cuts.  Those comments were made at the retreat as possible scenario and that faculty needed to be thinking about ways of dealing with the cuts.  

There is a plan to have a committee to draft a policy on academic freedom and speech.  Members include John Creed (UAF), Jim Liszka  (UAA), and Lynn Shepherd (UAS).   After they craft a statement it will go to the Senates and when passed by the Senate it will be forwarded to the Board of Regents for consideration.  

One committee has been looking at intellectual property rights.  The Alliance feels this is important issue and Lynn Shepherd at UAS is pulling together some articles. 

Eva Kopacz has approached each statewide council to ask how faculty can be more involved in an earlier level in the outcome based budgeting process. 

V	Consent Agenda

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

The motion was approved with the adoption of the agenda. 

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the UAF Academic Honors policy ( Pg. 22, 2003-04 Catalog) as follows:

CAPS = additions    
[[  ]]  = deletions

ACADEMIC HONORS

To be eligible for academic honors at the end of a semester, you must be a full-time undergraduate degree or certificate student who has completed at least 12 [[UAF]] UA INSTITUTIONAL credits graded with the letter grades A, B, C, D, or F.  If you have received an incomplete or deferred grade, your academic honors cannot be determined until those grades have been changed to permanent grades.  Academic honors are recorded on your permanent record.  You will make the Chancellor's List with a semester GPA of 4.0.  A GPA of 3.5 or higher earns you a place on the Dean's List.

	EFFECTIVE:  	Fall 2004 or When change is made to the 
		Banner Student system semester credits calculation.

	RATIONALE:   	This change will allow for all semester 
		credits from any MAU for honors calculations and is 
		a small step towards making the UA system more 
		uniform and seamless.

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

A break was taken for a group photo.  

VI	New Business

	A.	Motion to amend the Master's Degree requirements for the MA with project and the MS with project, submitted by Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee 

John Ma introduced the motion which changes the minimum credits of project work required to three credits.  Rainer Newberry proposed an amendment to keep the MS requirement at six credits.  Dan Odess indicated that this motion gives more flexibility to the faculty committee to require more coursework.  Jennifer Reynolds indicated that for the students who wants a professional or practical degree coursework may be more useful than  additional project credits.  The amendment passed.  It was stated that programs can require more project credits if they feel it is appropriate.  Further discussion of the motion as amended resulted in a reconsideration.  There was a request for a list of programs that require three credits and some sample projects.  The original motion was referred back to committee with a request for a detailed description of the rationale for each particular program that has three credits instead of the six credit requirement.  

MOTION REFERRED BACK TO COMMITTEE:
==============================

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the Graduate Degree Requirements for the Master of Arts with Project and the Master of Science with Project (p. 47 of the 2003-2004 Catalog) as follows:

[[  ]] = Deletions
CAPS = Additions

Master of Arts – with Project
	a.	Successfully complete at least 30 credits of course work 
		including at least [[six]] THREE credits of project work 
		(698).

Master of Science – with Project
	a.	Successfully complete at least 30 credits of course work 
		including at least [[six]] THREE credits of project work 
		(698).

	EFFECTIVE:  	Spring 2004

	RATIONALE:  	The purpose of the project is to provide 
		students with a "capstone experience" that differs from 
		a standard class in the level of independent work required.  
		At least nine departments or programs (including Physics, 
		Resource and Applied Economics, and the proposed 
		program in Community Psychology) consider three credits 
		sufficient to provide such an experience, especially for 
		projects that are practical in nature.  It is the type of work 
		rather than the number of credits that distinguishes the 
		project from a standard class.  The current 6-credit 
		requirement reduces the flexibility of the student in taking 
		other recommended or required courses.  This amendment 
		will allow the programs that currently list 3-6 credits 
		among their requirements to keep these requirements 
		while not affecting programs wishing to maintain a 6-credit 
		minimum.

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

	B.	Motion to require graduate students to enroll at the 600-level for 400/600 level stacked courses, submitted by Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee 

John Ma spoke about the motion requiring graduate students to enroll at the 600-level of any stacked courses.  Rainer Newberry spoke against the motion.  Graduate students are allow 6 credits at the undergraduate level and there is no reason why they can not be the stacked courses.  It might be more appropriate for students from other programs to take the course at the 400-level.  Jennifer Reynolds indicated that there seems to be two considerations for students to take a course at the 400-level instead of the 600-level.  One is financial and the other is the reduced work load.  Steve Cysewski stated that students may be taking a course for interest.  Jim Collins indicated that they have a number of stacked courses and students in their program might be required by their Graduate Study Plan to take it at the 600-level and other students outside the program might take a course for interest at the 400-level.  Dan Odess indicated that this decision should be made at the department level.  Abel Bult-Ito said that by requiring graduate students to take a stacked course at the 600-level you are reducing the number of 400-level courses they can select from and this has an effect of reducing enrollment in those courses.  The motion failed with 1 vote in favor.  

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

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the Graduate Academic Regulations as follows:  

[[   ]] = Deletions
CAPS  = Additions

Course Restrictions (page 44, 2003-2004 catalog)

You may not use credit by examination, audited courses, 500-level courses, or courses taken under the credit/no credit option to fulfill the basic course requirements of any degree program.  IF A COURSE IS OFFERED AT BOTH THE 400-LEVEL AND THE 600-LEVEL ("STACKED"), YOU MUST ENROLL AT THE 600-LEVEL.  No more than 12 credits of special topics courses (693 or 695) or individual study (697) may be used toward a graduate degree.  Requests for exceptions to the limit must be approved by the dean of the Graduate School.  

Stacked and Cross-listed Courses  (p. 181 in the 2003-2004 catalog--an addition to the second paragraph)

Courses are also sometimes offered simultaneously at different levels (for example: 100/200 or 400/600) with a higher  level credit requiring additional effort and possibly higher order of prerequisites from the student.  Such courses are referred to as "stacked" courses and are designated in the class listing by "stacked with ____".  In the case of 400/600 level stacked courses, graduate enrollment and a higher level of effort and performance is required on the part of students earning graduate credit.  GRADUATE STUDENTS MUST ENROLL AT THE 600-LEVEL FOR STACKED COURSES.

	EFFECTIVE:  	Spring 2004

	RATIONALE:  	The purpose of "stacking" courses at the 400 
		and 600 levels is to allow specialized courses to be offered 
		that would otherwise not have sufficient enrollment.  
		These courses must clearly distinguish between 
		undergraduate and graduate level work; usually a higher 
		level of effort and performance is required for graduate 
		students.  400-level courses can be used to fulfill a portion 
		of the graduate degree requirements where no appropriate 
		600-level courses exist.  Some graduate students enroll at 
		the 400-level because the workload is lower or because it 
		is cheaper.  This runs counter to the purpose of graduate 
		level education and the intent of stacking courses.  

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

	C.	Motion to amend the Attendance policy, submitted by Curricular Affairs and Faculty Appeals and Oversight 

Paul Layer spoke about the motion to modify the attendance policy.  This request came from the Provost to take into account the students who were required to participate in military exercises.  Also, through Curricular Affairs there was a request to be more specific about the expectations of the student and faculty for university required activities.  This motion reflects these concerns.  Dan Odess expressed his concern about giving equal weight to university sponsored activities and military obligations.  Paul Layer said what this policy will do is require the student to notify the instructor of their planned absences at the beginning of the semester.  The motion passed unanimously.

MOTION: 
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the "Attendance" policy under "Academic Regulations" (Pg. 22, 2003-04 Catalog) as follows:

CAPS = additions
[[   ]] = deletions

Attendance

You are expected to regularly attend classes; unexcused absences may result in a failing grade. You are responsible for conferring with your instructor concerning absences and the possibility of arranging to make up missed work. 

[[If you choose to be absent from class to participate in university-sponsored or other activities, you may be permitted to make up any work you have missed, but you must make arrangements with your instructor before the absence. You and your instructor should make a good faith effort to assure that you are not unduly penalized for each absence. University sponsored activities should be scheduled so that they do not conflict with final exams.]] 

If you are required to participate in either (a) military or (b) UAF-sponsored activities that will cause you to miss class, you must notify your instructor as soon as possible of your absence.  You must notify your instructor(s) of all scheduled UAF-required absences for the semester (e.g., travel to athletic events) during the first week of classes.   You and your instructor will make a good faith effort to make suitable arrangements to assure that you can make up classes and work you miss and are not penalized for your excused absence.  If suitable arrangements cannot be made, you will be allowed to withdraw from the course without penalty.   However, your instructor is under no obligation to allow you to make up missed work for unexcused absences or if notification and arrangements are not made in advance of the absence. 

	EFFECTIVE:  	Fall 2004

	RATIONALE:  	This change is intended to clarify vague 
		wording in the catalog regarding "required" absences 
		for military service or for participation in intercollegiate 
		athletics.

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

	D.	Motion to recommend that All-Campus Day be eliminated, submitted by Curricular Affairs 

Rainer Newberry spoke about the academic calendar and the need for a day off.  Joan Leguard spoke in favor of keeping the day.  UAF already has problems getting students to be connected with the school.  This is a common kind of day.  Many universities have a similar day.  Eliminating this day is a step in the wrong direction.  Steve Cysewski indicated that participation is minimal right now.  By recommending the elimination of the day it will force the students to let us know what they want to do with the day.  The motion passed with a vote of 15 yes, and 5 nay.  

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate recommends to the Governance Coordinating Committee that All-Campus Day be eliminated.  

	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately

	RATIONALE:  	All Campus Day was instituted in the 1950s 
		as a day of service to the campus and the community.  
		It is now simply a day when students don't have class.  
		It no longer serves its intended purpose.  

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

	E.	Resolution on parking violations and student registration, submitted by Faculty Affairs 

Shirish Patil commented that he wasn't at the last Faculty Affairs committee meeting, however, he spoke with the director of Parking Services and he was informed that Parking Services no longer posts a hold for 14 days from the date the ticket was issued to students.  Should the student decide to appeal beyond the 14 days, there is no hold.  There are other financial areas of the university, which also place a hold on the students' registration; parking is not the only thing.  So, this motion probably needs to be re-evaluated.  Mark Box suggested that we send it back to committee.  There was no opposition to referring the resolution back to committee.  

RESOLUTION REFERRED BACK TO COMMITTEE:
=================================

WHEREAS current University practice does not allow a person to 
	Register for a class if there is an outstanding parking ticket 
	even if the ticket is being contested, and

WHEREAS such a practice constitutes an undeclared qualification for 
	course registration that is not stated in the catalog, and

WHEREAS students are being denied access to the University because 
	of this practice, now
 
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the Faculty Senate requests that 
	the University end this practice and sever all connections 
	between parking violations and student registration.

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

VII	Committee Reports 

	A.	Curricular Affairs - R. Newberry

A report was attached to the agenda.  The committee would like input on the academic calendar.  The fundamental issue is whether to start before or after Labor Day and Martin Luther King Day.  

	B.	Faculty Affairs - P. McRoy

A report was attached to the agenda.  Joan Leguard spoke about a meeting with the Bookstore personnel about concerns.  There is concern about the bookstore losing money.  Last year it cost the Bookstore $700,000 for mailing costs generated by unsold returned books.  Other issues include late orders, under ordering, adding additional sections of courses at the last minute, and the cost of returning books.  Bookstore personnel want to visit the academic departments to talk about the needs of the departments.  

	C.	Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee – C. Mulder

A report was attached to the agenda. 

	D.	Core Review - D. Schamel

A report was attached to the agenda.  Abel Bult-Ito asked that the Core Review bring their concerns to the Senate before involving a wider audience. 

	E.	Curriculum Review - W. Schneider

The Committee met on October 10th and advanced the four trial courses on to the Provost's Office.  They will meet on October 31st to receive the fall review requests. 

	F.	Developmental Studies - J. Weber

The committee has not met, no report was given. 

	G.	Faculty Appeals & Oversight - P. Layer

A report was attached to the agenda. 

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

A report was attached to the agenda.  Fall travel funds have been disbursed totaling $10,000.  The spring travel fund review deadline will be December 11th and will be for an additional $10,000.

	I.	Ad Hoc Committee on Unit Criteria - D. Odess

Two sets of unit criteria have been review and sent back to their respective unit for additional work.  The committee hopes to have them out and to the Senate at the next meeting.  

VIII	Discussion Items

	A.	Status of Reconciliation Committee on Classified & 
		Proprietary Research policy

The reconciliation committee met on October 15th consisting of Faculty Senate representatives Mark Box, Rich Collins, and Peter McRoy.  Administrative appointments include Ted DeLaca, Roger Smith, and Mike Hostina.  The most serious objection to the proposal that the Senate passed is that it sets out eleven guidelines.  There is feeling that the guidelines create University regulations, which would infringe upon the President's discretionary powers granted by the Regents.  The suggestion was that the guidelines should be recast as considerations only.  The committee will draft a revision of the motion to bring before the Senate.   Pete Pinney asked what the difference was between a consideration and guideline.  A guideline is prohibitory power and a consideration is merely a topic to be considered by the President.  

IX	Members' Comments/Questions - none

X	Adjournment

	The meeting was adjourned at 3:10 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.