MINUTES
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #122
MONDAY, APRIL 5, 2004
Wood Center Carol Brown Ballroom

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

	A.	ROLL CALL 
	
	Members Present:		Members Absent:
	*Allen, J.				Davis, M.
	Barnhardt, C.			Kupries, M.
	Berman, G.   			
	Box, M.   				
	Bult-Ito, A.  			
	Cysewski, S.   			
	Dinstel, R.   			OTHERS PRESENT:
	Erickson, K. 			Brandt, A. 
	Gradinger, R. 			deForrest, R. 
	*Hannigan, M. 			Duffy, L. 
	*Haugen, L.   			Henry, L. 
	Herman, S.      			Kawula, J. 
	Leguard, J.  			Layral, S.
	Luick, B.   				Lind, M.
	Ma, Z. (R. Wackerbauer)	Martin, W. 
	*Leiner, R.     			Morrison, J. 
	McCarthy, P. (N. Mölder)	Reichardt, P.
	McRoy, P.     			Schamel, D. 
	Nakaneczny, M.    		
	Newberry, R. 			
	Odess, D. 
	Patil, S. 
	Pinney, P.
	Reynolds, J. 
	Roberts, L. 
	Schneider, W. (J. Anderson)
	Shur, Y. 				
	Smith, J.   				
	Weber, J.				
	Wisen, C. 				
	Zilberkant, E.			
	Zhang, S. 				

*audioconference was unavailable for most of the meeting.  

	NON-VOTING MEMBERS PRESENT:	
	O'Neill, R.   - President, UAFSC	
	Collins, J.   - Dean, SOM   		
	Joseph, B.  - Executive Dean, CRA
	Stickel, T.   - Registrar

	NON-VOTING MEMBERS ABSENT:
	Walker, T.  - President, ASUAF
	Graduate Student, GSO	

	B.	The minutes to Meeting #121 (March 1, 2004) were approved as distributed via e-mail.  

	C.	The agenda was approved as distributed via e-mail.  Dan Odess asked that item VII, B be pulled for further committee work.  Pete Pinney indicated that Eva Kopacz was in Anchorage and unavailable to give a faculty liaison report.  

II	Status of Chancellor's Office Actions
	A.	Motions Approved:
		1.	Motion to amend the Faculty Senate Section 3, 
			(Article V, Committee, Permanent) of the Bylaws 
			to establish a "Committee on the Status of Women."  
	B.	Motions Pending:  
		2.	Motion to approve a B.A. in Child Development and 
			Family Studies.

Paul Reichardt indicated that a clean copy of the B.A. in Child Development and Family Studies proposal was going forward to the Board.   

III	Public Comments/Questions - 

	A.	Jacquie Goss - Sustainable Campus Initiatives 

Russell deForrest attended for Jacquie Goss.  He gave a Powerpoint presentation focusing on sustainable issues on campus.  This Powerpoint presentation is available from the Faculty Senate office and includes the following key points:  

We believe that the success of higher education in the 21st century will be judged by our ability to put forward a bold agenda that makes sustainability and the environment a cornerstone of academic practice.  -- University Leaders for a Sustainable Future.  

Integrating values of:  Ecology---Equity---Economy

Vision--UAF should be a living laboratory for successful integration of social, economic, and ecological goals in the circumpolar north, and a leader in academic programs which address sustainability across disciplines.  

UAF Sustainable Campus Issues--need to look at University Policy, Operational Changes, Research Initiatives, Community Engagement

University Policy:  signing Tallories declaration; incorporate LEED principles into campus buildings and construction; policy for environmentally preferable purchasing. 

Operational Changes:  Baseline assessment -- campus environmental audit; Waste reduction and energy efficiency; encouraging waste saving strategies on campus.  

Research Initiatives:  unanswered questions; input and feedback from faculty/staff/students; establish grant opportunities to encourage research; classroom engagement.

Community Engagement:  Campus transportation and housing; community design; integrating science, education, and public policy; increasing student opportunity for engagement in university, community and circumpolar issues.  

Assessment tools:  Ecological footprint or carbon footprint; cost/benefit analysis; university mission. 

Current Focus areas:  Policy commitment -- Tallories Declaration; assessment tools; environmental audit; waste reduction; transportation.  

Higher Education plays a critical role in creating and disseminating the knowledge, skills and values for society.  It has unique academic freedom and the critical mass and diversity of skills to develop new ideas; comment on society and its challenges; and to engage in bold experimentation in sustainable living. --Anthony Cortese, Second Nature

The web site for University Leaders for a Sustainable Future is:  www.ulsf.org

B.	Allen Brandt - Student Academic Freedom

Allen Brandt, president of new campus club called Students for Academic Freedom.  He spoke about his concerns of academic freedom for students.  

Students for Academic Freedom is a national coalition of independent campus groups dedicated to restoring academic freedom and educational values to America's institutions of higher learning. 

Students for Academic Freedom is dedicated to the following goals:  
1.	To promote intellectual diversity on campus. 
2.	To defend the right of students to be treated with respect by faculty and administrators, regardless of their political or religious belief.  
3.	To promote fairness, civility and inclusion in student affairs. 
4.	To secure the adoption of the "Academic Bill of Rights" as official university policy.  

Allen Brandt urged the Faculty Senate to draft a policy that would insure that faculty are aware of their rights and responsibilities in the classroom.  

The website is:  www.uaf.edu/saf   Allen Brandt can be contact at:  ffadb1@uaf.edu.  

C.	Larry Duffy spoke in support of the CSEM Unit Criteria.  The College has been working on these criteria for two years.  

IV	Governance Reports

	A.	President's Comments - Pete Pinney

Pete Pinney indicated that the Faculty Senate will be co-sponsoring Sandra Elman, April 23-24.  She will make a presentation on Friday, April 23 from 1-2, in the media classroom, Rasmuson Library Room 340.  This will be video-conferenced.  Topic of her presentation is trends in higher education.  

The Chancellor Search is coming along and four candidates will be invited to campus in April.  There will be a number of forums for faculty and staff to attend.  
 
The Women's Conference will be held on campus Thursday-Saturday, April 8-10.  

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

Abel Bult-Ito's comments on the outcomes based budget were attached to agenda.  He forwarded responses that he received from faculty to Pat Pitney.  Her responses are attached.  His general impression is that while they are talking real communication is not taking place.  Paul Reichardt suggested that the Chancellor sit down with a group of faculty to talk about target and goals for UAF before they are presented to statewide.
  
Abel is disappointed with the lack of response from Pat Pitney and others involved.  Their responses do not take into consideration the special requirement of some of our small classes.  Abel asked for suggestions of what to do.  

Jennifer Reynolds had a response to the section on setting goals and targets.  Setting unrealistic goals is a bad thing because it distorts decisionmaking.  Abel indicated that he will probable step back from the issue because he feels that he has had no effect.  Peter McRoy said that it has been good work because it has revealed an issue that many are not aware of who is setting policy and hopes that Abel will stay with it.  Karen Erickson questioned the lack of consequences of not reaching the goals.  While it is not stated budget cuts may be the consequence.  Dan Odess stated there is a lot of talking but no communication.  There is no give and take.  Maybe Chancellor Lind may be a better person to communication to Pat.  Jennifer Reynolds said there were three statements in Pat's emails that were particularly important.  One was a reference to reallocation of existing resources and that was the only solution to the need for resources.  This may be a very significant outcome.  The other two statements include looking at other flagship institutes and UA may have to follow state measures.  

Abel expressed his concern that other faculty have worked on this and haven't gotten anywhere.  On the other hand it is being portrayed as faculty being involved in the process.  While we have been involved there is has been no impact.  Pete Pinney indicated that they would bring this up with the Faculty Alliance.  UAF is not the only campus feeling certain frustrations.  

	C.	Staff Council - Rory O'Neill

Rory O'Neill, Staff Council President, reported on a number of items they are dealing with at the system level through Staff Alliance and at the UAF.  The Ad Hoc Committee on Accountability and Sustainability will be sending out a report.  Vice-President Jim Johnson has met with a group of non-represented staff on a compensation task force to look at the various issues.  Many staff are looking forward to the new UAChoice health benefits program.  Open enrollment starts in April and runs for a month. 

There is a recognition award for staff contributions to students called Make Students Count.  This is a President's level award.  Nominations for the UAF Chancellor's Recognition award are also open.  Rory encouraged faculty to nominate staff members for these awards.  

Staff Council is 100% behind ASUAF's initiative on glass recycling.  He would like to see this work for the community.  

At the system level there are two things they are working on.  There is Board of Regents policy for governance but that has been no UA regulations promulgated for governance.  Staff Alliance is pushing for formulation of university regulations.  

At UAF on April 6th is the staff longevity awards ceremony.  Rory encouraged everyone to attend.  This will strictly be longevity, some of the other awards will be moved to a staff appreciation social on May 14th.  UAF day at North Pole is coming up and a number of department will make an appearance there.  UAF Human Resource director, Carolyn Chapman, has agreed to recognize governance participation in the personnel files.  It will represent something like training or service to the university.  

Finally, Rory O'Neill encouraged those who supervise staff to allow them to participate in governance.  

	D.	ASUAF - Thom Walker

Thom Walker was not available to give a report.

	E.	Faculty Liaison - Eva Kopacz

Eva Kopacz was not available to give a report. 

V	Comments from Chancellor, Marshall Lind - 

Pete Pinney presented Chancellor Lind with another gift--a BS blocker to neutralize Senatorial accusations.  

Chancellor Lind would agree that Abel had done a very good job, a very thorough job on the outcomes assessment.  He would hope that Abel would stay involved in the process.  On the 15th of April he is supposed  to have some suggested figures for the targets and goals that will be discussed with President Hamilton.  There are five outcomes that we are looking at this year.  Two of them related to research.  We are trying to gather the data:  what is realistic in terms amounts, how much can we do, what has happened over the past few years.  Two are related to enrollment.  One is an enrollment issue of what can we reasonable project for UAF based on what we see in terms of high school graduates from the state, looking at our out-of-state enrollment, as well as retention.  The other outcome has to do with the jobs, referred to as graduates of High Demand programs.  Paul Reichardt has asked all the deans and program directors to gather information, so we can have some kind of reasonable assessment of what we can do.  He would like to have someone from the Senate work with them to finalize realistic targets for UAF.  It would like it to be as realistic as possible.  There is no point in going out with figures that are unrealistic--you raise expectations for things that may not happen.  The Senate has done a lot of preliminary work and now we need to take the next step.  

The Chancellor wished to share exciting news about the Sneddon chair candidate.  What impressed him about the individual was a note recapping a dinner he had with the journalism faculty.  All of the discussion was about students.  He was very impressed with the commitment of faculty in that department.  Hopefully an offer will be made and we can move on with the other two endowed chairs.  

Chancellor Lind stated that we didn't quite make what we had hoped to do, that was to come up with an agreement on classified research that we could hold up as a model that could easily be adopted by statewide.  What we did do by raising this issue, is elevate the question of classified research to the level where it should be.  That is, is it going to be a statewide issue.  It will result in a regulation that will be patterned after the Board's policy.  Much of what has been proposed will be the basis of the new regulation.  There was a meeting with President Hamilton, Craig Dorman, and others talking about what the UAF Senate has done and how it can apply on a statewide basis.  Chancellor Lind is very pleased that some things will happen and it is directly related to the senate's interest and recommendations.  Much of your concern will be incorporated.  There will be a chance to discuss this through the Faculty Alliance.  That is the level it will now go.  There may be one or two incidents a year that we think will have some classified research implication.  It is a good possibility that the first classified research question may come from Anchorage as it relates to their Logistics program.  This work will go forward and he wanted to thank the senate for their involvement.  

Chancellor Lind had an opportunity a couple of weeks ago to dedicate a new addition on the Bristol Bay campus.  It was dedicated to a former director, Peggy Woods.  They are still $1 million short and need additional funding to finish the building.  

One additional item deals with the College of Engineering proposal.  They will be going to the Board of Regents next week to talk about the creation of a College of Engineering and Mining.  They will be pulling all the engineering programs together.  Also created would be a College of Science and Math.  The School of Mineral Engineering will not exist as a separate school.  We will not be reducing our efforts in the mineral engineering programs, but will be incorporated into the new College of Engineering and Mining.  There is some concern that with the reorganization they will be eliminating program.  That is not the intent.   We hope to strengthen those programs with a different organization.  We hope to have it in place by next fall.  

Peter McRoy commented that the Senate is not pleased with the result of the classified research policy and they will be forwarding a new policy.  

	Comments from Provost, Paul Reichardt -

Paul Reichardt commented on the discussion on Outcomes Based Budgeting and the effort to communicate with Pat Pitney.  This shows the fundamental problem of communication with statewide about productivity goals.  We always get into discussions about our lack of productivity and decline in productivity.  None of us have time to go back to the data and put together the argument from our standpoint.  We need to sit down with the raw data and come up with targets.  

At the Administrative Committee meeting Nicole Mölder came with an issue about publication restrictions on papers that come from certain countries.  Paul has some material about the issue and will give it to Pete and Abel.  

The Provost then spoke on the Academic Performance Criteria.  He took this to the Provost Council and they have been working on it over the past several months.  Faculty involvement includes the 1/2 day retreat and Pete's involvement in the Provost Council.  He hopes over the next couple of months to come to a set of criteria to measure performance.  There may be some allocation of incremental budget money based on performance.  He would appreciate input from faculty over the next month.  

The final item is an update on the Academic Development Plan.  There is not much change.  This version contains an expanded category on renewable natural resources to natural resources.  It also cleans up things in respect to opportunities and needs.  This will be used as a guideline over the next two or three years.  

Abel asked about a written response to the Budget report from last year.  He mentioned that Craig Wisen is coming up with another data set; however, it would still be appropriate to give a response to his report.  

Concerning the academic performance criteria, Abel asked if it was possible to see the data to compare the schools and colleges and see how the data works.  Paul indicated that he has held back on some of the data because he wanted to get what sounds like good criteria before everyone answers the question of how will my unit fare.  

VI	Old Business

	A.	Motion on classified research policy, submitted by Faculty Affairs 

Peter McRoy spoke about the actions of the reconciliation committee and this revised policy.  The Senate members of the committee were Mark Box, Rich Collins, and Peter McRoy.  The administrative members were Roger Smith, Ted DeLaca, and Mike Hostina.

What is before the Senate today is the revised policy prepared by the members of the reconciliation committee.  It is very similar to the original policy approved by the Senate.  A change is that the review process applies to the faculty oversight committee.  There are three points brought forward:  1) establish a review committee; 2) the composition of that committee; and 3) the rule for review.  

Mark Box stated that the issue involves three aspects; there are questions of what is legal, practical, and what is good for the university and community.  What is good for the university and community has not been a significant part of our conversations.  We have been tied up with the legalistic arguments.  The General Council insists that regulations listed in the policy passed by the Senate bind the president in a way that is incompatible with the control of classified research given to him by the Regent's policy. The council's overriding concern for the president's power distorts his reading of the policy he sites since the language of policy shows no concern for the president's power.  The Regent's were very concerned that any classified research be regulated properly.  The president is required to promulgate university regulations that protect the basic tenets of university.  We need a review of proposals that does not allow the decision makers to shape the advice that they get.  Some of the regulations that we have proposed have to do with promotion and tenure and the treatment of students.  These are decisions that traditionally belong to faculty.  Mark urged senators to approve the policy before the Senate.  Pete Pinney indicated that the policy before the Senate is a substitute for what was vetoed and was not able to come to a reconciliation.  

Dan Odess asked Chancellor Lind what he felt was a productive way to proceed with a policy on classified research.  Chancellor Lind felt that the Senate should pass a policy, which reflects the desires of the faculty.  There are certain points that faculty feel very strongly about and they should not be lost.  All the different protections that will be in the best interest of the university need to be forwarded.  This will be helpful to inform the next level of faculty concerns.  The process of promulgation a regulation will have a series of hearings.   This will be elevated to systemwide so that Faculty Alliance will become involved.  This opens it up to a whole lot of exposure.  I don't think all of these will be adopted, but the one of most concern stands a good chance for inclusion in the regulation.  Where the breakdown has been is in the legal realm.  He is optimistic that it will happen.  This will go to a level that will involve the Board of Regent's knowledge of this and the Faculty Alliance will be able to make comments to them.  

Abel asked the Chancellor if he would veto the motion.  Chancellor Lind indicated that he would not veto it as he would like to see it moved forward.  It will be forwarded without his signature.  The motion was approved unanimously.

Preamble:
Statement of Faculty Senate representatives of the Classified Policy
Reconciliation Committee

The Faculty Senate is "The primary mechanism for the formulation and oversight of academic policy is the Faculty Senate. Among concerns addressed by the Faculty Senate are: course and program development and change; policies related to academic procedures; academic freedom and faculty rights and responsibilities; and, quality of teaching, research and service" (http://www.uaf.edu/uafgov/faculty). Underlying the following revision of the senate's proposal are these concerns.

1. The institutional officer charged with security oversight (the Facility Securities Officer or equivalent) must be funded fully so that she or he can conduct a complete and thorough review of proposals and assess all the impacts of the proposed activity. Full funding of this office is the most important guarantee for the safety of the community, the protection of the academic environment, and compliance with federal requirements for security.

2.  The UAF Faculty Research Oversight Committee must not only be independent but also seen to be so. The review panel members will not require a security clearance as they will review an unclassified report of the proposal that is prepared by the Facility Securities Officer. The review committee will give a finding of advice to the chancellor. It is critical that the chancellor is not seen to be shaping the advice coming to her or him.

3.  The senate must be able to meet its responsibilities so that the academic integrity of the university is maintained in teaching, research, and service. A faculty review panel elected from the senate will enable the senate to meet these responsibilities.

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.

UAF Policy Concerning Classified and Proprietary Research

RATIONALE:  This policy is offered pursuant to Regents' policy 10.07.02, which says that the university may engage in classified or proprietarily research, subject to approval of the chancellor, "in accordance with Regents' Policy, University Regulation, applicable laws and regulations, and MAU rules and procedures."

Towards ensuring that classified and proprietary research will be conducted in a responsible and ethical manner consistent with mission of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, this policy will provide the chancellor with findings on research proposals reached after a review by a duly constituted committee of faculty.

The Faculty Senate seeks a policy, in principle, of complete disclosure of research activities and sources of funds. The conduct of classified research inherently restricts participation of students and faculty who work on such research.

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. With disclosure to the Faculty Senate, an Faculty Research Oversight Committee will advise the chancellor by means of a finding arrived at by a review following the guidelines set forth below.

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 made possible 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.

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.

Faculty Research Oversight Committee

The Faculty Senate shall establish a Faculty Research Oversight Committee as a standing committee of the senate to review all classified and proprietary proposals, grants, and contracts according to the guidelines listed below and 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.  A Facilities Security Officer shall be an ex-officio member of the committee.  The committee will also include someone from the Office of Sponsored Research and a designee of the chancellor as ex-officio members.  Committee membership must broadly represent the university community.

Guidelines for the Faculty Research Oversight Committee for Reviewing Classified or Proprietary Research Proposals

Proposal review requires that each principal investigator prepare a short non-classified or non-proprietary description and title for the project that can be publicly reviewed.  The following will apply to such statements.  The Facilities Security Officer must participate in the review process to clarify questions pertaining to classified material.

1.  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 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.

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

4.  No thesis or project 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.

5.  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.

6.  No university courses given for degree credit shall be classified in any part.

7.  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.

8.  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.

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

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

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

Review Process for Classified and Proprietary Research Proposals

The following procedures shall apply to all proposals submitted to the Office of Sponsored Programs.

1.  The Office of Sponsored Programs will use a checklist to determine if a project requires formal review by the Faculty Research Oversight Committee.

2.  The Faculty Research Oversight Committee will review proposals identified as classified or proprietary according to the guidelines given above and offer recommendations to the chancellor in an expedited fashion.

3.  The committee will publish an annual report on the status of classified and proprietary contracts, grants and proposals at UAF to the Faculty Senate.

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.

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

	B.	Resolution on Parking, submitted by Faculty Affairs

Peter McRoy spoke about the need for this resolution.  It came about because university practice is to withhold registration for people who owe on parking tickets.  This should not be a de facto qualification for registration.  Tim Stickel asked if there had been any discussion with the Business Office as they are the ones who put on the holds.  They, of course, have to enforce them.  Discussions with the Business Office indicated that they put a hold on faculty, staff, and students.  It does not distinguish between parking, library books, or any other thing.  Tim asked that the Business Office also be added to the resolution.  The motion with this change passed without objection.  

RESOLUTION: 
=========

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 Business Office, Registrar and Parking Services end this practice and sever all connections between parking violations and student registration.

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

VII	New Business

	A.	Motion to amend Section 3 (Article V, Committees, E. Standing) of the Bylaws to establish a standing "Unit Criteria Committee" 

Dan Odess presented the motion to add a standing Unit Criteria committee to the bylaws.  The Unit Criteria committee requires a lot of work and those who serve on it are requires to serve on two committees.  There will be continued work for the committee because all peer review units are also to submit unit criteria and to review them every five years.  The motion passed unanimously.  

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend Section 3 (Article V, Committees, E. Standing) of the bylaws to establish a standing "Unit Criteria Committee."  

CAPS = Additions
[[   ]] = Deletions 

3.	THE UNIT CRITERIA COMMITTEE WILL REVIEW PROPOSED UNIT CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF FACULTY SUBMITTED BY THE VARIOUS PEER-REVIEW UNITS OF UAF, AND TO WORK WITH THE HEADS OF THOSE UNITS (OR THEIR DESIGNEES) TO ENSURE THAT THEIR CRITERIA ARE CONSISTENT WITH CRITERIA DEFINED IN THE UAF FACULTY APPOINTMENT & EVALUATION POLICIES & REGULATIONS "BLUE BOOK".  THE COMMITTEE WILL ALSO REVIEW PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE "BLUE BOOK."

TO ENSURE THAT PERSPECTIVES FROM ACROSS UAF ARE REPRESENTED, MEMBERSHIP WILL CONSIST OF FACULTY SENATORS, WITH ONE MEMBER DRAWN FROM EACH OF THE FOLLOWING SCHOOLS/COLLEGES:  CLA; CRA/CES; CSEM; SFOS; ENGINEERING; AND ONE FROM SNRAS, SOED, OR SOM.

	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately

	RATIONALE:  	Currently the Senate has an Ad Hoc committee
		that fulfills this responsibility.  That committee is 
		composed of members drawn from the Senate's other 
		standing committees, with the result that members of 
		the Unit Criteria committee are effectively pulling double 
		duty.  It is apparent that the work done by this committee 
		will be ongoing, as each unit develops criteria and is 
		required to renew them via the Faculty Senate every five 
		years.

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

	B.	Motion to approve the Unit Criteria for Anthropology

Dan Odess asked that the motion be pulled.  The committee would like to review the final draft one more time.  

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

	C.	Motion to approve the Unit Criteria for the Science 
		and Engineering unit of CSEM 

Dan Odess asked that language be added to state that the criteria will continue to be in effect for the two units upon reorganization of CSEM.  The amendment passed.  The motion with the amendment passed unanimously.    

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve the Unit Criteria for the Science and Engineering units of CSEM.  These criteria shall remain in effect in the event that there is a dissolution of CSEM until such time as the units develop criteria of their own. 

	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately
				Upon Chancellor Approval

	RATIONALE:  	The committee assessed the unit criteria 
		submitted by the College of Science, Engineering, and 
		Mathematics (CSEM).  With some changes, agreed upon 
		by the school representative, the unit criteria were found 
		to be consistent with UAF guidelines.

		There is a proposal to move Engineering into a new College 
		of Engineering and Mining.  These criteria will continue to 
		be in effect until each of the separate units develop 
		criteria of their own.  

	(See Agenda Attachment #7 for a copy of the unit criteria.)

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

	D.	Resolution for the UAF Rifle team 

Pete Pinney indicated that this resolution will be presented to the Rifle team on April 30th.  The resolution passed without objection.  

RESOLUTION OF RECOGNITION

WHEREAS, The UAF rifle team won its sixth consecutive NCAA Rifle Championship title in March, 

WHEREAS, freshman Matt Rawlings was named a Co-Shooter of the NCAA Championship, and 

WHEREAS, Matt Rawlings captured the individual smallbore championship and finished second in air rifle; Joe Hein was second in smallbore and fifth in individual air rifle; Jamie Beyerle took third in both smallbore and air rifle; and Karl Olsson posted a sixth place finish in smallbore, and 

WHEREAS, four members of the Nanook rifle team earned National Rifle Association All-American status--Matt Rawlings and Joe Hein were named first-team All-American by the National Rifle Association in both smallbore and air rifle; Karl Olson was named first-team All-American in the smallbore division and second-team honoree in air rifle; and Matthew Wallace was named first-team All-American in smallbore, now 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the UAF Faculty Senate congratulates the 2003-2004 UAF rifle team as NCAA champion and commends the team's superior performance.  

***********

	D.	Confirmation of Outstanding Senator of the Year Award, submitted by OSYA Screening Committee 

Pete Pinney indicated that the screening committee forwarded two names to be confirmed for the award.  Abel Bult-Ito indicated that to be confirmed they must receive a majority vote.  A vote was held by secret ballot and Jane Weber and Peter McRoy were confirmed as Outstanding Senator of the Year.  Formal resolutions will be presented at the next Faculty Senate meeting.  

	E.	Nomination & Election for President-Elect 

Pete Pinney called for any additional nominations.  Nominations were closed and an election was held.  Jane Weber spoke on behalf of the nomination of Michael Hannigan and Peter McRoy spoke on behalf of Shirish Patil.  

Pete reported the results of the balloting.  Shirish Patil was elected as President-Elect and Jane Weber and Peter McRoy were confirmed as Senator of the Year.  

It was later discovered that two ballots were submitted by rural members prior to the cut-off time.  This resulted in a tie vote.  Another election will be held.  The following is a message sent out later that day by Pete Pinney.  

I prematurely announced the results for president-elect. Two votes emailed in were posted before 2pm, which did meet the deadline.  That made the count evenly divided between both candidates.  As a result, I have declared another election.  I have instructed Sheri to distribute ballots to all senators. Please indicate your choice by returning the ballots to the governance office before April 16th.

I apologize for any confusion this may have caused. 

Pete Pinney,
Faculty Senate President

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

VIII	Committee Reports 

	A.	Curricular Affairs - R. Newberry

A report was attached to the agenda. 

	B.	Faculty Affairs - P. McRoy

A report was attached to the agenda. 

	C.	Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee – C. Mulder

Jennifer Reynolds indicated that the committee had just met on Friday and did not have a report. 

	D.	Core Review - D. Schamel

The following report was distributed as a handout. 

Core Review Committee 
Report of activities for March 2004
Douglas Schamel, Chair

Members present: Jill Faudree, Jin Brown, Jonathan Rosenberg, Derek Burleson, Douglas Schamel, Paul McCarthy, Rainer Newberry
Ex-officio: Sue McHenry

Things have been relatively quiet with the Core during March.

We reviewed a handful of petitions and approved the removal of the "W" and "O" from BIOL/FISH 427 (Ichthyology).

We are attempting to publish a brief article in the Sun/Star that updates major changes to the Core curriculum before students register for Fall 2004.

We are anxiously awaiting guidance from the ad hoc CLA committee that has been discussing the "Perspectives" portion of the Core.

	E.	Curriculum Review - W. Schneider

No report was available. 

	F.	Developmental Studies - J. Weber

A report was attached to the agenda. 

	G.	Faculty Appeals & Oversight - P. Layer

Paul Layer indicated that the reviews of administrators were being written.  

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

A report was attached to the agenda. 

	I.	Ad Hoc Committee on Unit Criteria - Dan Odess

Dan Odess thanked the Senate for passing the CSEM unit criteria.  They have reviewed the Anthropology criteria, which will be forwarded to the Senate in May.  They just need another quick look at them.  They have looked at MAP (Marine Advisory Program) unit criteria.  They submitted them using a previous version of the Blue Book and they will revise them and resubmit them.  The committee has also looked at Math.  They had a nice clean set of criteria and they will deal with them at the April 16th meeting.  They expect to bring them forward at the May meeting as well.  

IX	Discussion Items - none

X	Members' Comments/Questions - 

Tim Stickel reminded everyone of the commencement ceremony on May 9th.  Registration for Fall 2004 begins today.  Tim asked faculty to encourage their students to register early.  They have a number of prizes that will be given away to students who register before May 3rd.  

Pete Pinney stated that the statewide development director has come up with a naming policy.  It states that if you donate enough money you can have your name on a building, room, park or just about anywhere.  While it is innovative and a great way of making money, Pete is concerned that it goes against the Master Planning Committee Strategic Plan of open park naming of indigenous cultural heritage.  He intends to take this forward to the Faculty Alliance.  There are already criteria establish at the MAU's.  

XI	Adjournment

	The meeting was adjourned at 3:15 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.