MINUTES
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #135
Monday, March 6, 2006
1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.
Wood Center Carol Brown Ballroom 

I	Call to Order – Paul Layer

Faculty Senate President Paul Layer called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m.

A.	Roll Call

Members Present:  
	Members Absent: 	
Allen, Jane 	Collins, Jim	
Anahita, Sine 	Lan, Ping	
Anderson, Jodie	Roberts, Larry	
Ayagarak, Nancy		
Bailey, Scott		
Berge, Anna		
Brown, Liz		
Burleson, Derick		
Cahill, Cathy		
Chowdhury, Ataur	Others Present:	
Cooper, Christine	Bult-Ito, Abel	
Corkern, Cliff	Allen, Jim	
Davis, Mike	Deters, Pam	
Genetti, Jon	Hapsmith, Linda	
Gray, Patty 	Henrichs, Susan	
Haugen, Lee	Jones, Steve	
Illingworth, Marjorie	Lardon, Cecile	
Iken, Katrin	Layral, Sheri	
Kawula, John	Morrison, Joy	
Konar, Brenda	Pinney, Pete	
Layer, Paul	Reichardt, Paul	
Newberry, Rainer	Thomas, Dana	
Patil, Shirish		
Prakash, Anupma		
Rickard, Anthony		
Riley, Julie		
Thompson, Joseph		
Weber, Jane (Cindy Hardy) 		
Wiechen, Heinz		
Wies, Rich		
Wolsko, Chris		
Zhang, Mingchu		
Zhou, Wendy 		

Non-Voting Members Present:  
	Non-Voting Members Absent:	
Morrow, Phyllis - Dean, CLA	Williams, Richard - Dean, CEM	
Salganek, Maya - Staff Council President 		
Stickel, Tim - Registrar	United Academics-Adjunct	
Blanchard, Joe - ASUAF (Pat Frymark)		
Hazlett, Susan - GSO 		
Porter, David - United Academics		
Illingworth, Ron - ACCFT		

B.	Approval of Minutes to Meeting #134

The minutes were approved as distributed.  

C.	Adoption of Agenda

The agenda was adopted as distributed.  

II	Status of Chancellor's Office Actions 
	A.	Motions Approved:
1.	Motion to amend the Computation requirements for the Certificate and A.A.S. degree.
2.	Motion to amend the UAF Faculty Senate By-laws, Section 3 (Art. V: Committees, Permanent) increasing membership on the Committee on the Status of Women.
3.	Motion to amend the UAF Faculty Senate By-laws, Section 1 (Art. III: Membership) to include research faculty. 
B.	Motions Pending:  none

III	Public Comments/Questions – 

Dana Thomas – He represents the subcommittee for the Interim Accreditation Report Committee.  Dana served in 1995 on the Interim Accreditation Report and on 2000-2001 Accreditation Team.  This is institutional accreditation.  In the interim report we have to give an update on what has been done since the 2001 report by the commission.  The subcommittee Dana is working on is the Faculty subcommittee.  There were two concerns expressed by the accreditation board in 2001 -- 1) salary compression and 2) faculty handbook.  They did have to respond in 2003 concerning the absence of a faculty handbook.  The Faculty Senate did have an opportunity to review the on-line Faculty Handbook at that time and make comments.  Any feedback on what has changed would be useful.  Faculty may send comment to him by email at ffdlt@uaf.edu.

Pete Pinney – Pete spoke on behalf of PFFLAG.  He appreciates the Senate's consideration of the resolution on SJR 20.  How that amendment is interpreted may go beyond taking away rights to people unable to marry in the state.  It is a faculty recruitment and retention issue.

IV	A.	President's Comments - Paul Layer

Paul Layer will have comments later during the discussion on the +/- grades.  

The Provost gave Paul Layer a copy of the Enrollment Management Task Force Report.  In it there are several recommendations that we as a Senate should look at in the next month or so.  The first is a proposed change to the admission standards for baccalaureate programs and to have a status in the university of Bachelor Intended.  This would be similar to what we have as a pre-major in some programs.  We already have in place various baccalaureate admission standards including a high school diploma and pass the high school qualifying exam, have 16 credits with a GPA of 2.5 in the core curriculum, submit ACT/SAT scores, and have an overall high school GPA of 2.0.  Some of the proposals they are looking at are to increase the high school GPA to 3.0 overall or have some conditions with ACT/SAT scores if the GPA is below 3.0.  This would allow us to better target individuals at-risk who have problems getting through some of the baccalaureate programs.  A second issue deals with enhancing developmental education.  Another is the prerequisite for core courses.  One of the ideas is in order to take any core curriculum class student should have a background in English such that they would qualify to go into a 100-level English class.   For science and math there might also be eligibility for a 100-level math.  In 2003 the Senate passed a motion on Mandatory Placement.  In light of these changes we may want to strengthen the language of our policy.  We want to get the criteria in place soon so that word can get to the high schools.  The overall admissions requirements will probably go into place by Fall 2008.  We need to get the word out that this is what we expect students to have in terms of basic competency to go into bachelor programs.  

General Education Requirements (GERs) – There is a draft memo from Mark Box, chair of Core Review.  This is a discussion of the transferability of GERs between the three MAUs.  It is an area of great consternation for us here on how we handle students coming in from other MAUs who have some general education courses, but they don't necessarily meet the expectations that we think a core course should have.  Mark has outlined some of the concerns.  Paul Layer brought this issue before the Faculty Alliance.  It has been at the attention of SAC.  Vice President Dorman has offered to put forth some funding to bring faculty together from the three MAUs to discuss the common themes and how we can reach consensus.  Transfers from other universities are working pretty well.  

Cindy Hardy indicated there is a STARR committee that is dealing with developmental studies courses across MAUs.  

B.	President-Elect's Comments - Shirish Patil

Shirish Patil indicated the Faculty Alliance did discuss Mark's proposal and the other Senates will take it to their GER committees.  

Retirement issues.  - The Board of Regents approved the retirement plan recommendations from statewide administration.  Effective July 1, 2006 the new ORP plan will require three years of vesting, employer contributions will be capped at 12.5%.  Enrollment in the NORP will be required in order for the employee to be eligible for the University pension benefits.  If a person selects the new PERS or TRS (defined contribution plan), they would not be eligible for the University pension plan.  

Strategic Plan.  The plan is done.  It was read at several different forums and groups on campus.  It is a very strong plan and they anticipate it will be out at the end of March.  Visit the strategic plan website.  

Electronic Workloads. - The initial plan on the electronic workload was to have a demo in Spring 2006 with implementation in Fall 2006.  The company they are working with will try to tailor the plan and it may be postponed until 2007.  

There is also another survey instrument that UAA is looking at.  It is called IDEA.  This could replace the current SOI tools that we use at UAF.  It is tailored to what the instructor needs and how they can extract information.  We will look into this instrument.  

Paul Layer recognized Shirish for being selected as the Society of Petroleum Engineering of the Year and the 2005 Alaska Engineering Societies Engineer of the Year. 

V	A.	Remarks by Chancellor S. Jones   

The provost succession plan - Paul Reichardt will be leaving mid 2007.  Chancellor Jones would like to have someone on board to overlap with Paul for 30-90 days.  We need to have a search committee formed by the end of the semester.  Before that search committee can begin functioning, we need to know what position we are advertising.  We talked about whether the position should continue as it is with the broad span of control that includes everything from academic programs, international programs, the graduate school, libraries, the research institutes, and the museum. Chancellor Jones has had discussions with the Provost Council and the Research Working Group. He would like to have a similar conversation with a group of Senators or the executive board.   

KUAC – He has the KUAC Task Force report.  The task force did not come to consensus.  There are two sets of opinions that surface with almost every facet of the report.  He has asked the Foraker Group, which is a non-profit that works with non-profits, to help us to decide what to do with the recommendation.  He looks to them to give a report in another week.  Chancellor Jones would like to make a decision shortly after that and having in place an advisory body named and to meet before the end of the semester.  Both the Board of Regents and Chancellor Jones have expressed that it will not be a fully elected body.  The Board of Regents, President Hamilton, and Chancellor Jones will not be engaged in making programming decisions.  They will look to the outside advisory body to help work through the troublesome issues that generated so much angst and passion.  

Funding information from President Hamilton - There are three points in time: 1986 as a bench mark point; 1999, 13 years later; and the present bench marked of what we are asking the state to provide in 2007.  These are all in uninflated dollars.  
1986 – state appropriate Systemwide was $167.6 million - that provided about 60% of budget
1999 – state appropriate was $167 million - unchanged, flat funding
2007 – we are asking for $291.8 million 
The state has simply maintained it funding of the university over the years in inflated adjusted dollars.  If we had enjoyed the state appropriation at a similar rate of inflation as the nation, it would be higher.  Instead of asking for $291.8 million, we'd be asking for $380 million.  If we look at the Higher Education Price Index, which is about 3.7% compounded each year, we'd be asking for $359.5 million.  If you look at what we are asking for it amounts to a 2.67% increase compounded, which is far below inflation and the Higher Education Price Index.  

Hamilton asked the question - What have we done with nothing?  
Student body has increased by 3,500 students
Facilities - our gross square footage of facilities has increased by 1.8 million sq. ft.
Faculty  - our faculty has increased by 350 FTE
Degrees  - the degrees awarded have increased by 60% 

We have responded quite well with entrepreneurial activity, with greater efficiency and all those things.  

	B.	Remarks by Provost P. Reichardt	

Paul Reichardt spoke about the regional accreditation review process.  Accreditation standards are divided into nine categories.  The commission is in the process of completely reviewing the standards and rewriting them.  A survey was distributed to people involved in accreditation.  Each institution has an academic liaison officer who organizes the review of their institution.  At a meeting of the commission they were asked about the standards.  We will probably see a dramatically change in the document and accreditation requirements.  There will be more emphasis on outcomes as opposed to inputs.  The next rendition will ask for proof that there is enough faculty to deliver the programs. 

Two issues are surfacing in higher education.  If you look at the last 25 years of the Consumer Price Index, higher education costs lead the pack.  Even higher than the increase for health care costs and benefits.  We have inflated more the cost of higher education over the years at a much higher rate than anything else.  Paul provided a piece from the New York Times Editorials/Op Ed. page on adult literacy.  It indicated over the past 40 years the communication and quantitative literacy of college graduates has decreased.  We need to be aware of these reports and do everything we can on the accountability and the affordability aspects of higher education.  Congress has not reauthorized the federal higher education act.  Over the next year they will be considering the act.  

We have heard from staff at the NW commission headquarters that they have some questions about the collaborative Ph.D. in Psychology with UAF and UAA.  We might have to make some changes in the detail of the program to address the concerns of the commission.  It may or may not require review from the Senate.  

Rainer asked about the nature of the concerns to the Ph.D.  Paul indicated it was the arrangement for collaborate programs and the degree granting accreditation status of the institutions involved.  

VI	Governance Reports 

	A.	Staff Council - Maya Salganek

Staff Council met on February 22.  In January held a new member orientation and they did an informal survey of the new members and asked for their vision of why their got involved.  The results were varied but one thing stuck out was communication and how it flows.  People love working at UAF because of the people and diversity.  

The have been following the New Optional Retirement Program (NORP) and what it means to staff.  Right now it is not an option for staff.  They have also heard public testimony on the Senate Bill on Marriage and Benefits.  Maya also received an email forwarded by the Chancellor's office stating that advocacy on this issues at this time is not advised.  

Staff Alliance is following two issues:  
1) Employee Tuition Waivers - Statewide Planning and Budget Development conducted a review on employee tuition benefits and the grades they received.  They compared them with other students and those given out at all the MAUs.  UAF students on tuition waivers are failing classes at 18%.  This is a concern and may be an accountability issue. 

2) Wellness Program - 3000 responses were received, about 52% response rate.  The three highest areas of concern are:  cardiovascular disease (85%), inactivity (80.5%), and stress (68.9%).  

Staff Council passed two motions concerning awards to staff.  Eligibility for the Chancellor's Recognition Award was changed to exclude deans, directors, and executive staff.  A Chancellor's Supervisory Recognition Awards has been established and is open to all staff and faculty occupying any supervisory position.  This is an effort to recognize people who have become great leaders within their unit.  

	B.	ASUAF - Joe Blanchard 

Patrick Frymark, chair of the ASUAF Senate, presented two resolutions approved by the ASUAF Senate: 165-017A Changing Procedure on the Advisor Signature and 165-022A Mid-term Exams.  

Senate Resolution 165-017A Changing procedure of advisor signature, states that advisory signatures should only be required for students in their first two semesters and for those in poor academic standing and other students in the fall semester.  It also states that advisors should work out a degree plan of study for their students at the beginning of their program.  

Senate Resolution 165-022A supports the creation of a policy mandating that mid-tem exams and papers be returned before the last day to withdraw from classes.    

These resolutions can be found at: http://asuaf.org/stugov/leg_disp.cgi?body_id=2

	C.	GSO - Susan Hazlett

Susan indicated that GSO is not active and there is nothing to report.

VII	New Business 

A.	Motion to amend the Advanced Placement Credit, submitted by Curricular Affairs Committee 

Rainer indicated that foreign language would like to eliminate the “bonus” credits for foreign languages.  Students wishing to receive credit for lower level courses have the opportunity to take standardized tests.  Alaska Native languages would remain in the policy because there are no standardized tests.  The motion passed unanimously.

MOTION:  
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the "UAF Advanced Placement Credit" for Foreign Languages/Alaska Native Language to delete Foreign Languages from the policy (p. 31-33 of the 2005-2006 catalog).  

CAPS  - Additions
[[   ]]  - Deletions

Alternate Ways to Earn Credit 

UAF Advanced Placement Credit

*[[Foreign Language/]] Alaska Native Language

After completing the course in which you were placed (above 101) and earning a B grade or higher, you may ask to receive credit for the two immediately preceding prerequisite courses, if any.  However, credit cannot be awarded for such courses if university credit has already been granted for them (e.g., through College Board Advanced Placement national tests or credit transfer from another college).  Credit will not be awarded for special topics courses, individual study courses, literature or culture courses, conversation courses, or any course taught in English.  

EFFECTIVE:  	Fall 2006

RATIONALE:  	The Dept. Foreign Languages is asking to do away with this manner of earning credit for the following reasons:
•	it is redundant: Students may earn up to 16 credits in French, German, and Spanish through the CLEP test offered by Testing Services. Tests in Japanese and Russian are offered by BYU and are also accepted by UAF. (see p. 31 of the UAF catalog) 
•	it duplicates AP credit: local AP language teachers are advising students not to take the AP test if they are planning to attend UAF because they can get the credit simply by taking a class.
•	it is inconsistent with other academic disciplines: Foreign Languages and Alaska Native Languages are the only programs that offer this sort of credit. ANL chooses to maintain the policy because there are no tests available in Alaskan Native languages. Other departments have no such policy- why should we be different? Students cannot earn credit for Biology 104 and 105 by taking Biology 106. 
•	it does not benefit heritage and native speakers: as languages grow in popularity more and more heritage and native speakers (in Spanish particularly, but also in other languages) are signing up for classes. Under the current policy they must begin at the 300-level in order to earn bonus credits for the prior courses. Many of these students are not served by 300-level classes and should go directly into more advanced courses, but cannot do so because they will lose their chance to earn “bonus” credits. 
•	it creates difficulties for instructors: students take classes that they really should not be in (for which they are either under- or over-prepared) so that they can try to get bonus credits. This creates difficulties for instructors who are trying to deal with, for example, a native speaker in a third-year language class. 
•	it is overly complicated: along with increased popularity and enrollment come increased difficulties. While we attempted to draft a policy that would cover all situations, this has not turned out to be so. Not a week goes by without some new, unexpected request for credit that must be dealt with on a case by case basis. The evaluation of these cases is causing an undue burden to faculty and staff.

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

B.	Motion to amend the grading policy to change the "I" and add the "NB" grading option, submitted by Curricular Affairs Committee 

Rainer indicated that this would change current policy and return it to past practices.   It also adds a line stating that instructors should make every effort to contact their students who receive an "I" grade.  The addition of the NB grade would essentially be an alternate to a late withdrawal without going through all the paperwork.

Marjorie Illingworth spoke in favor of the NB grade for use with the non-traditional student.  It is a very effective tool.  It is an instructor option and is not required.  Ataur Chowdhury stated that students should take responsibility for their grade and students should fail if they have not completed the course or withdrawn.  

In response to comments by Patty Gray, Tim Stickel indicated that there is no easy way to manage or implement a particular grade for a specific area or course.  If we blanket a grade it has to go across the whole system. 

Cindy Hardy spoke in favor of the NB grade. She has used the grade in the past for lower level students that are marginal or at risk.  This gives her an option for students who simply stop coming for personal reasons.  Cindy also spoke in favor of the "I" grade changing to an "F" after a year.  

Cathy Cahill spoke in favor of the "I" changing to a failing grade after a year.  Katrin Iken indicated that after this discussion she has changed her mind about the NB grade and sees the value of having this grade.  Faculty don't have to give the NB grade.  Liz Brown spoke against the NB grade.  Patty Grey indicated that she works with a different demographic group of students and would not use this for her students.  Mike Davis spoke in favor of the NB grade as a tool that faculty can use.  Nancy Ayagarak remembers using the NB only a couple of times.  If we are interested in developing people, giving a student who is going through a difficult time or giving them a chance later when their own life has straighten out, this grade option is handy.  

There was additional discussion about a more flexible withdrawal policy.  Tim Stickel indicated that the last day for student initiated withdrawal was nine weeks after the start of the semester.  Late withdrawals require instructor, department head, and dean signature.  This is allowed up to the last day of class.  The student has to sign the form.  The motion passed with 16 in favor and 11 against.  

Rainer stated that given the vote on the issue he would entertain additional suggestions for the committee to consider on other ways of doing withdrawals that might address some of the concerns.   

MOTION:  
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to change the Grading System policy for the "I" -- Incomplete grade and add the "NB" -- No Basis grading option (2005-2006 Catalog, page 70-71), as follows:

[[    ]]  =  Deletions  
CAPS  = ADDITIONS

Grading System and Grade Point Average Computation

"I" 	Incomplete --
[[Indicates that you have not been able to complete the course during the scheduled course time.  

When the I grade is given, the instructor will include a statement of the work required of you to complete the course and the time limit you have to complete the work.  The maximum allowed time is one year.  At the end of the defined time limit, the instructor may issue a grade based on the work turned in.  If the instructor does not change the I grade, it becomes permanent at the end of one year.  The I grade is not computed in your GPA.  You cannot graduate with an I grade in any required course.]]

THE LETTER GRADE "I" (INCOMPLETE) IS A TEMPORARY GRADE USED TO INDICATE THAT THE STUDENT HAS SATISFACTORILY COMPLETED (C OR BETTER) THE MAJORITY OF WORK IN A COURSE BUT FOR PERSONAL REASONS BEYOND THE STUDENT'S CONTROL, SUCH AS SICKNESS, HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO COMPLETE THE COURSE DURING THE REGULAR SEMESTER.  NORMALLY, AN INCOMPLETE IS ASSIGNED IN THE CASE WHEN THE STUDENT IS CURRENT IN THE CLASS UNTIL AT LEAST THE LAST THREE WEEKS OF THE SEMESTER OR SUMMER SESSION. NEGLIGENCE OR INDIFFERENCE ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE REASONS FOR AN "I" GRADE.  THE DEFERRED GRADE (DF) SHOULD BE USED FOR THOSE CASES WHEN A STUDENT IS UNABLE TO COMPLETE A COURSE DUE TO INSTITUTIONAL REASONS, SUCH AS BREAKDOWN OF LABORATORY EQUIPMENT.  

	THE INSTRUCTOR WILL ALSO INCLUDE A STATEMENT OF THE WORK REQUIRED OF THE STUDENT TO COMPLETE THE COURSE AT THE TIME THE "I" GRADE IS ASSIGNED AND A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE INCOMPLETE GRADE WILL BE SENT TO THE DEAN OF THE SCHOOL OR COLLEGE IN WHICH THE COURSE IS GIVEN.  AN INSTRUCTOR INTENDING TO ASSIGN A GRADE OF ‘I” WILL MAKE A CONCERTED EFFORT TO CONTACT THE AFFECTED STUDENT AND SECURE HIS/HER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE CONDITIONS.

	AN INCOMPLETE MUST BE MADE UP WITHIN ONE YEAR OR IT WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE CHANGED TO AN "F" GRADE BY THE RECORDS OFFICE.  THE "I" GRADE IS NOT COMPUTED IN THE STUDENT'S GRADE POINT AVERAGE UNTIL IT HAS BEEN CHANGED TO A REGULAR LETTER GRADE BY THE INSTRUCTOR OR UNTIL ONE YEAR HAS ELAPSED AT WHICH TIME IT WILL BE COMPUTED AS AN "F".  A SENIOR CANNOT GRADUATE WITH AN "I" GRADE IN EITHER A UNIVERSITY OR MAJOR COURSE REQUIREMENT.  TO DETERMINE A SENIOR'S GRADE POINT AVERAGE AT GRADUATION, THE "I" GRADE WILL BE COMPUTED AS A FAILING GRADE.

"NB"   NO BASIS --

INSTRUCTORS MAY AWARD A NO BASIS (NB) GRADE IF THERE IS INSUFFICIENT STUDENT PROGRESS AND/OR ATTENDANCE FOR EVALUATION TO OCCUR.  NO CREDIT IS GIVEN, NOR IS THE "NB" CALCULATED IN THE GPA. THIS IS A PERMANENT GRADE AND MAY NOT BE USED TO SUBSTITUTE FOR THE INCOMPLETE (I).  IT CANNOT BE REMOVED BY LATER COMPLETING OUTSTANDING WORK. 

	EFFECTIVE:  	Fall 2006

RATIONALE:  	On December 9th, 1996, the Faculty Senate eliminated the No Basis (NB) grade and changed the ‘I’ so that it would not turn into an ‘F’ after a year.   With NB no longer an option, some faculty assigned grades of ‘I’ to students who had no intention of ever completing a particular course.  This caused a huge amount of paperwork (each 'I' requires a separate sheet of paper) and massive paper jams in Admissions & Records, as they’re supposed to keep a record of every ‘I’ grade.  CRCD faculty, through the Associate Dean, request restoration of the ‘NB’ grade—essentially viewing the changes of 12-9-96 as a failed experiment.  In doing so, it would be logical to return to the old ‘I’ at the same time.   Consequently, this proposal is to essentially turn back the clock to November 1996; restore the grade of ‘I’ to its originally intended use; and restore the option of giving a grade of ‘NB’ to a student who has registered but not substantially participated, and not withdrawn.  The addition of the line in italics is to help prevent giving an ‘I’ to a student who would prefer to take a (low) grade instead of finishing a course.

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

	C.	Resolution on SJR 20 and HJR 32 (Attachment 135/3)

Sine Anahita introduced a revised motion.  Both Sine and Jane Weber offer the motion because they are concerned that if it passes the legislature it would have a negative affect on recruitment and retention of faculty.  Currently faculty who are financially interdependent partners (FIPs) are able to enjoy a wide range of employment benefits.  This amendment, if it does pass, would put before the voters of Alaska, an amendment to the state constitution that would essentially counteract the University's policy on non-discrimination based on marital status.  They offer the resolution for a couple of reasons.  One is to recognize the University for its statement of refusing to discrimination based on marital status.  And also to reaffirm the University's commitment to non-discrimination based on marital status.  Liz Brown seconded the resolution. 

Shirish spoke about the email that was forwarded by the Chancellor's Office from Ann Ringstad, Associate Vice Chancellor for University Relations.  It read:  

This Senate Joint Resolution, if passed, would place the question of state benefits to same sex partners of state employees.

PLEASE NOTE: The resolution addresses only the issue of putting this question on the ballot.  It does not address the issue, but rather if the legislature should put it on the ballot this year.  If it indeed goes on the ballot, it would take a 60% margin to pass. There are legislative and legal questions pending regarding the wording in the resolution; it does not have a good chance of passage in the legislature this year, especially with the requirement of a 2/3rd's affirmative vote for passage.

Jim Johnsen, UA Vice President for Faculty and Staff Relations, will testify before the legislature in Juneau regarding this issue, and will state the following:

The University is interested in ensuring its ability to recruit and retain faculty and staff.  Our domestic partner benefit program is an important part of the compensation package we use to compete on the national market.  According to a 2004 CUPA survey, 48% of the universities across the United States provide similar programs.  Furthermore, it is inexpensive, as it amounts to just 1.6% of our health benefit cost.

Advocacy on this issue right now is not advised. If and when it moves forward, you will be notified.

Sine indicated that the amendment is so broadly written that it would probably apply to other sex partners as well as same sex partners and would affect many more people at UAF.  Liz Brown said we should take action to show support before they go to testify before the legislature.  They should have all our support behind them.  Anna Berge agreed.  

Abel Bult-Ito spoke about the memo from Ann Ringstad. He responded to the email with the following statement.  

I would like to comment on your email memo to the staff and faculty governance leadership regarding SJR 20 – Constitutional Amendment – Benefits and Marriage, dated 4 March 2006.

You state at the end of your memo that “advocacy on this issue right now is not advised.  If and when it moves forward, you will be notified.”  By sending this memo to staff and faculty governance leadership you have set a very dangerous precedent of UAF Administration sponsored censorship, or at the very least undue political pressure.  Your actions indicate that you have little regard for shared governance and that you are willing to compromise academic freedom and freedom of speech for political means.  Where will such a precedent end?  I ask that you withdraw your memo at your earliest convenience with an apology to the governance leadership.

The resolution passed with a vote of 26 in favor and 2 abstentions.  

RESOLUTION

ON

Constitutional Amendment: Benefits & Marriage
(SJR 20 and HJR 32)

WHEREAS, Discrimination against faculty on the basis of marital status is expressly prohibited by the University of Alaska Board of Regents Statement of Non-discrimination; and 

Whereas, the UAF Faculty Senate affirms the importance of complying with university non-discrimination policies; and

WHEREAS, to comply with SJR 20 and HJR 32 the university would deny financially interdependent partners (FIPs) insurance benefits, family membership at the Student Recreation Center, tuition waivers, faculty housing, and other valuable benefits currently offered counter to university policy prohibiting discrimination based on marital status; and

WHEREAS, The Faculty Senate affirms that providing insurance and other benefits to FIPs is a valuable way to recruit and retain excellent faculty; now

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the UAF Faculty Senate is opposed to SJR 20/HJR 32; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the UAF Faculty Senate commends the University of Alaska statewide administration for its ongoing support of financially interdependent partner (FIPs) benefits.

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

	D.	Nominations for President-Elect 

Jon Genetti was nominated for President-Elect.  Nominations will remain open until the next Senate meeting in April.

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

E.	Plan for Faculty Referendum on Proposed +/- Grading System, submitted by Curricular Affairs 

Rainer Newberry is looking for someone opposed to the change to write a statement.  Paul Layer indicated that ASUAF is willing to have a referendum during their elections this spring.  

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

VIII	Committee Reports

	A.	Curricular Affairs - Rainer Newberry 

A report was attached to the agenda. 

	B.	Faculty Affairs - Jon Genetti 

No report was submitted.  The committee discussed the changes to the NORP plan.  

	C.	Unit Criteria - Glenn Chappell 

No report was submitted.  

	D.	Committee on the Status of Women - Jane Weber 

A report was attached to the agenda. Cindy Hardy indicated that the committee did send a resolution to the Chancellor's Strategic Planning Committee on the diversity statement in the "Vision Statement" of the Strategic Plan 2010.  

	E.	Core Review - Mark Box

A report was attached to the agenda. 

	F.	Curriculum Review - Rainer Newberry

No report was submitted.  

	G.	Developmental Studies - Cindy Hardy/ Joe Mason

A report was attached to the agenda. They are meeting again on Friday, March 10.  

Addendum to the Minutes: 

Concern was raised at the meeting that the Enrollment Management Committee (EMC) report recommendations did not make any reference to the need for additional Reading faculty.  This problem was acknowledged by faculty who teach the reading courses.  This is a significant problem area not addressed by the EMC and one, which must be resolved in the near term.  

	H.	Faculty Appeals & Oversight - Larry Duffy

A report was attached to the agenda. 

	I.	Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement – Larry Roberts  

The following report was submitted as a handout.  

Faculty Development, Assessment, and Improvement Committee
Meeting Minutes, February 20, 2006

Meeting was called to order at 1:05pm

Attending: 	Christie Cooper, Susan Henrichs, Marjorie Illingworth, John Kawula, Joy Morrison, Clifton Corkern, Larry Roberts-Chairperson

Agenda items:  Roll-call
		Approval/changes to agenda
		Approval of minutes
		Report from Joy
		Unfinished business
		Update on education conference
		New Business
		Adjournment

Larry Roberts opened the meeting with a roll-call and it was determined that we had a sufficient number of members present for a quorum. The agenda for the day was approved. The minutes of the January meeting were approved. Further business was conducted resulting in the following decisions and shared information.

Report from Joy:	
Joy introduced the idea of faculty learning communities. They are 8-10 person groups that meet at least once a month to engage in learning and development activities. The group process enhances collaboration, increases identification, and as a result is known to be a great retention tool. Documentation was provided to those present and will be sent to those at a distance in preparation for a discussion at the March meeting.  The idea is being presented to the Academic Deans’ Council with a fall launch in mind. Joy will be attending a learning communities training (three day hands on workshop) in June.

	The audio conference on how to interpret IAS forms with Wayne Jacobson from the office of University Assessment at the University of Washington in Seattle went well. Numerous faculty members attended both locally and others called in from campuses across the state.
	
	Upcoming development sessions include Tips on Teaching, Advising Graduate Students, and How to Teach the New Student (StarLink).

Unfinished business:
	Susan brought up an issue of discussion from last year – the difficulty of getting assessment/feedback from distance students. There appear to be differences in the rates of return for CRCD courses, which are primarily conducted, in audio format and other programs such as the Justice Masters, which is conducted entirely on-line. A third distance context is the CDE. A change has occurred in the role or label of the faculty members involved. They are now called “graders.” It is unclear whether this change is intended to impact whether “graders” are to receive formal feedback. Larry and Marjorie will do some research on all of these issues and provide information to the committee so that we can discuss whether we are to get involved.	

Educational Conference update:
	Larry reported that The Conference on Teaching Excellence to be held March 2-4 has 73 of the 75 slots filled. It looks like it will be a great success. At this time the conference is being opened up to those who can only attend a portion of the sessions. Joy asked for suggestions regarding what groups or individuals other than those attending the conference could be invited to the March 2nd luncheon, which will begin the preconference.  Chancellor Jones will open the luncheon and Karen Purdue from health programs for the state will be the speaker. 

New business:
	Larry reminded us of the upcoming faculty senate elections and asked those who would be rotating off this term to consider continued service.

The meeting was adjourned at 1:40pm.

Next Meeting:  March 20, 2006 @ 1:00pm

Respectfully submitted by:  Christie Cooper, Secretary

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

	J.	Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee – Cathy Cahill

No report was submitted.  

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

IX	Members' Comments/Questions - 

Paul Layer asked for three volunteers to review the Outstanding Senator of the Year nominations.  Jon Genetti, Mike Davis, and Anumpa Prakash will be on the OSYA committee.  

Tim Stickel reminded faculty about the freshmen progress reports that will be going out both electronically and physically to all freshmen who aren't doing so well.  He encourages all students to check their mid-term grades on UA Online.  Paul Layer stated that this gets back to the students resolution requesting that we be more responsive on mid-term grades.  The student withdrawal date is Friday, March 24.   Paul Reichardt thanked Tim for his rapid response.  This issue came up at the Administrative Committee meeting the previous week.  The question was,  Could we send out notices in the mail in addition to electronically?  The answer came back that it was done.  

X	Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 3:05 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.