MINUTES
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #137
Monday, May 1, 2006
1:00 p.m. - 4:00 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 	Bailey, Scott	
Anahita, Sine 	Burleson, Derick	
Anderson, Jodie	Wolsko, Chris	
Ayagarak, Nancy		
Berge, Anna		
Brown, Liz		
Cahill, Cathy	Others Present: 	
Chowdhury, Ataur	Bult-Ito, Abel	
Collins, Jim	Hapsmith, Linda	
Cooper, Christine	Jones, Steve	
Corkern, Cliff (Hardy, Cindy)	Reichardt, Paul	
Davis, Mike	Washington, Lynette	
Genetti, Jon		
Gray, Patty 		
Illingworth, Marjorie	Alvarez, Ruth	
Iken, Katrin	Brooks, Cathy	
Konar, Brenda	Brooks, Ramy	
Newberry, Rainer	Cavota, Cheryl	
Kawula, John	Chythlook, Frank	
Lan, Ping	DeSanto C.	
Layer, Paul	Emmons, Matt	
Weber, Jane	Fitch, Angie	
Thompson, Joseph	Foster, Selma	
Rickard, Anthony	Freiburger, Annette	
Patil, Shirish	Gault, Linda	
Prakash, Anupma	Jayne, Erik	
Riley, Julie (Peter Bierman)	Meglitsch, Tabatha	
Roberts, Larry	Nicoli, Brenda	
Wiechen, Heinz	Reakoff, Michelle	
Wies, Rich	Rivas, R.	
Zhang, Mingchu	Rivas, Anesia	
Zhou, Wendy 	Williams, Harvey	

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

B.	Approval of Minutes to Meeting #136

The minutes were approved as distributed.  

C.	Adoption of Agenda

The agenda was approved with the withdrawal of New Business Items VII, D-G and Maya Salganek moved up on the agenda.

II	Status of Chancellor's Office Actions 
	A.	Motions Approved:
1.	Motion to endorse recommendation on Admission Standards for Baccalaureate programs.
2.	Motion to amend the "walk-through" requirements for graduate students.
3.	Motion asking the Registrar to provide Deans a list of courses that have not been offered for five year for review and deletion.
4.	no motions pending at this time
B.	Motions Pending:  none

III	Public Comments/Questions - 

Eric Jayne is a veterinarian in rural Alaska and is working on the new program in veterinary science.  This is an important program.  This is one of the biggest things happening in rural Alaska.  There is a gold mind of talented veterinarian students.   Randy Brooks, Harvey Williams, Cathy Santo, Cheryl Cavota and a number of others spoke in support of the proposed degree in veterinary science. Annette Freiburger, coordinator of the Nenana Center, also spoke in favor of the program.  

Paul Layer invited other guests to let him know during the break if they have other comments. This program is still being discussed in committee.  Your input will definitely be appreciated.  Comments can be sent by email to fysenat@uaf.edu.  There were about 20 people in the audience to show their support for this program.  

IV	A.	President's Comments - Paul Layer

Paul Layer indicated that this meeting is the end of the present Senate.  At the end of the meeting we will adjourn that Senate and then seat the new Senator members.  There will be a reception right after the meeting for the Usibelli Awards.  There will also be a dinner at 6:30 at Pikes Landing.  

At last Friday's Faculty Alliance meeting the issue of tuition adjustments was addressed.  Next years tuition is going up ten percent.  After that there is a request for a seven percent increase in 2008.  President Hamilton thinks that the seven percent increase in tuition will cover the basic costs.  If they authorize a higher level, the additional funds will be placed into a program of needs based financial aid.  This is an idea that he has and is looking for feedback at this time.  

Paul stated that his year as Faculty Senate President has gone too fast.  There were a couple of issues that he wanted to address this year.  The plus/minus issue is moving forward today under new business.  He appreciates all the work done on that issue.  The other issue was to improve communication between the senators and their colleges.  Communication is an important aspect--you are representatives of yourself and your college/school.  They need to know what is going on and to be able to give opinions.  The most worrisome occurrence came concerning the KUAC resolution.  He received calls from faculty saying that the Senate doesn’t speak for them.  That bothered him as President of the Faculty Senate because he would like to go forward representing the faculty on issues that come out of the Senate. 

B.	President-Elect's Comments - Shirish Patil

Shirish Patil thanked all of the Senators for their work on the various committees.  He appreciates all the effort everyone put in.  He recently visited Dillingham.  In his 17 years at UAF, that is his first visit to any of the rural campuses.  It was a great visit.  He had a chance to meet with the faculty, staff, and director.  What came out of it the meetings was the Enrollment Management Task Force recommendation.  Over the year he has seen the recommendations and it comes from something that we are use to:  pre-major students, bachelor intended.  Dillingham would prefer a conditional admission than a bachelor intended.  Shirish indicated that to him it is more of a marketing strategy, how the recommendation will be marketed.  That's the key element.  In general, faculty and staff from Bristol Bay campus support the majority of the recommendations.  They would also like to see the learning disabilities and other aspect of the student needs be addressed.  Shirish will be meeting with Tim Barnett to review their recommendations.  

C.	Maya Salganek – Staff Council

Maya Salganek indicated that her term as Staff Council President is also coming to an end.  They have made some good headway in regard to training and supervisor connections, which has been an ongoing project.  At the last Staff Council meeting they heard from Nick Townes, a graduate student in Communication.  He is working on an M.A.   He sent out a survey on performance appraisals to a thousand staff members.  He shared the results of his study with Staff Council.   It showed that if people are given a performance appraisal the employee and the supervisor are more positive about it.  He did not look at the process, which is something the Council will be making recommendations on.  Staff felt that it is good to have these communication processes.  It's nice to see the feedback between the employees and their supervisors.  

UAF Day at North Pole turned out great.  Faculty and staff attended.  There were many hands on activities.  

Their Health and Wellness Committee is moving ahead.  They have been picked on by Statewide as the only committee that is showing a forward momentum.  At the UAF campus they are starting a walking program.  They are trying to create an on-campus walking group.  They are also bringing weight watchers on campus.  They are looking at helping the rural sites have access.  They have requested space and equipment to hold athletics events.  

Staff Appreciation Day will be held on May 18 from 12-2 p.m. in the Wood Center Multi-level lounge.  They are selling raffle tickets to support the endowed Carolyn Sampson Memorial Scholarship.   They support two scholarships each year.  

V	Guest Speaker - Steve Smith, OIT 

Paul introduced Steve Smith. 

Steve Smith stated that everyone should have received an email and/or a letter concerning the security incident at the Bethel campus.  On March 30, in response to a call from a technician from the Bethel campus, they noticed some anomalies in the server that provides basic service to the campus.  They tracked it down and discovered that the computer had been hacked and compromised on multiple occasions.  Unfortunately, there was a file on that computer that contained the names and social security numbers of both current and former individuals affiliated with UAF.   It had been on there for a number of years.  He was not aware of it.  It had been set up as an automative procedure to provided access to people that had business with Bethel campus to get resources out there.  They immediately shut down that computer and took it off line.  He ordered a scan of all computers at UAF and across the system.  They did not find any other computers at that time that had been compromised.  People try to compromise our computers on a regular basis.  They catch most of them.  They also found three other files with social security numbers that were used for automatic account creation.   They have been shut down.  

There is currently an investigation to find out who did this and why.  They believe there is a low probability that personal information on the computer was taken.  There is no evidence at this time that the file was touched, manipulated, or used.   The reason we believe there is a low probability is because the first initial hack to this computer took place in February 2005.   Usually if information is going to be use, it is done quickly to avoid being caught.  To this date there have been no confirmed reports from anyone on the list that had a personal information problem.  If there had been a widespread use of that information, one would expect something to come to light.  

They have set up an 800 number for people to call and will keep that in place for as long as needed.  They have set up a web site with FAQ's that is updated regularly.  In the letter mailed out to all of you there is information about a free credit check to credit agencies.  They will also be bringing in outside folks to look at all of our security procedures, both technically and the application process.  This raises to the surface the need to stop using personal identification information.  We started by getting rid of social security number.  There is no reason now to use the social security number--we now have a separate identification number.  There are still some places we need to clean up.  This will be a start.  

VI	Consent Agenda

Paul Layer indicated that one resolution he wanted to present at the Senate meeting was for Wanda Martin, but she is not here, so it will be read tomorrow at her retirement reception.  He encouraged the Senate members to thank her when they see her.

Paul also indicated that the Chancellor and Provost would be at the Senate meeting after the break.  Mike Humphrey will also be here to talk about health care and retirement.  

The following motions/resolutions were approved upon the adoption of the agenda.  

A.	Motion to approve the list of the 2005-2006 degree candidates, submitted by Administrative Committee 

MOTION:
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate recommends to the Board of Regents that the attached list of individuals be awarded the appropriate UAF degrees pending completion of all University requirements.  [Note:  copy of the list is available in the Governance Office, 312 Signers' Hall.]

	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately

RATIONALE: 	These degrees are granted upon recommendation of the program faculty, as verified by the appropriate department head.  As the representative governance group of the faculty, we are making that recommendation.

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

B.	Resolution of Recognition for Paul Layer, submitted by Administrative Committee 

RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION

FOR

PAUL LAYER

WHEREAS, Paul Layer has served Faculty Governance in its many forms over the years in a manner deserving of the UAF Faculty Senate's greatest admiration and respect; and 

Whereas, Paul Layer has served as Senator to the UAF Faculty Senate from 1994-1996; and 

Whereas, Paul Layer has served as Chair of the Scholarly Activities Committee from 1994-96, as a member of the Ad Hoc Committee on Unit Criteria from 1994-1996, as Chair of the Faculty Appeals & Oversight Committee from 2002-2004; and 

Whereas, Paul Layer has served as a member of the Administrative Committee from 1994-96 and 2002-2004, as Chair of the Administrative Committee and as President-Elect of the UAF Faculty Senate from 2004-2005; and 

Whereas, Paul Layer has served as a member of the UAF Governance Coordinating Committee from 2004-2006 and as Chair from 2005-2006; and 

WHEREAS, Paul Layer has served as a member of the UA Faculty Alliance from 2004-2006 and represented UA Faculty Alliance to the UA Statewide Research Advisory Council from 2005-2006; and 

WHEREAS, Paul Layer has served on various Search Committees, and other university and statewide committees representing the interests of faculty to the administration of UAF and statewide; and

Whereas, Paul Layer has served as President of the UAF Faculty Senate from 2005-2006 and has effectively represented the interests of the UAF Faculty Senate to the administration of UAF; and 

WHEREAS, The UAF Faculty Senate wishes to acknowledge the outstanding service rendered to the faculty and the University by the work of Paul Layer as he concludes his term as president; now 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the UAF Faculty Senate acknowledges the many contributions of Paul Layer and expresses its appreciation for his exemplary service.

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

C.	Resolution for Outstanding Senator of the Year Award, submitted by OSYA Screening Committee 

OUTSTANDING SENATOR OF THE YEAR AWARD

FOR

SINE ANAHITA 

WHEREAS, Sine Anahita's willingness to serve the university is evident in the fact that she joined the UAF Faculty Senate in her second year; and

WHEREAS, Sine Anahita worked with passion as a member of Faculty Affairs Committee during 2004-05; and

WHEREAS, Sine Anahita served as a member of the Committee on Status of Women, during 2005-06; and

WHEREAS, Sine Anahita with professionalism and dedication demonstrated leadership in the development and analysis of the Study of Faculty Work Life at the University of Alaska Fairbanks survey and communicated the results of the study across the UA community; and

WHEREAS, Sine Anahita has distinguished herself as an active and engaged colleague in the UAF Faculty Senate, ever mindful of her constituency and sees her constituency as the entire university community; and

WHEREAS, Sine Anahita's commitment to equity for all make her a valuable Faculty Senator who deserves recognition; now 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the UAF Faculty Senate recognizes Sine Anahita as Outstanding Senator of the Year for Academic Year 2005-2006.

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

D.	Resolution for Wanda Martin, submitted by Curricular Affairs  

RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION

FOR

Dr. Wanda Martin

WHEREAS, Wanda Martin has served the UAF Faculty Senate in a manner deserving of the UAF Faculty Senate's esteem; and 

Whereas, Wanda Martin has served as a member of the UAF Faculty Senate Curricular Affairs Committee since 1992; and 

Whereas, Wanda Martin has served as a member of the UAF Faculty Senate Developmental Studies Committee since 1989; and 

Whereas, Wanda Martin has dedicated 22 years of service to the University of Alaska and the Academic Advising Center; and 

WHEREAS, The UAF Faculty Senate wishes to acknowledge the exemplary service rendered the faculty and the University by Wanda Martin; now 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the UAF Faculty Senate thanks Dr. Wanda Martin for her decades of service to UAF--through working with and for undergraduate students--and wishes her success in future endeavors.

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

E.	Motion to ratify the recommendation of the GCC to delete the standing committees, submitted by Administrative Committee 

MOTION:
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate ratifies the recommendation of the Governance Coordinating Committee to remove the Diversity & Tolerance Action Committee and the Intercollegiate Athletic Committee (IAC) from the Governance Coordinating Committee (GCC) Procedures and the further recommendation from GCC that the IAC be reclassified as an advisory board reporting to the UAF Director of Athletics and Recreation and the Vice Chancellor for Advancement and Community Engagement.

EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately 

RATIONALE:  	According to governance policy, changes in the GCC committee structure require a 2/3 vote of each governing body represented by the GCC (Faculty Senate, Staff Council and ASUAF).  Having succeeded in establishing the Chancellor’s Campus Diversity Action committee (CCDAC) the UAF Governance Coordinating committee concludes that the goals and charges of the Diversity and Tolerance Action Committee are being met under the CCDAC, therefore; the Diversity and Tolerance Action Committee is no longer necessary.  The scope of the work conducted by the Intercollegiate Athletic Committee is better served by having a more direct link to the Director of Athletics and the Vice Chancellor for Advancement and Community Engagement.  Faculty, staff and student representation on the IAC is sufficient for providing information and input to the three governance organizations. 

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

VII	New Business 

A.	Motion to amend the Mandatory Placement Policy, submitted by Curricular Affairs and Developmental Studies Committees

Cindy Hardy stated there were two different versions of the motion that have been in committee for the past two months.  They had a lot of feedback from those involved with the Developmental Studies version.  More specific elements were removed from previous versions of the motion.  The committee will be working next year on developing guidelines and recommendations for placement in specific areas.  

Mike Davis was unclear about the last paragraph.  Cindy indicated that part of it is that we feel that many of us have been asking for these resources and haven't gotten them.  This is a way to indicate to the administration that we need these resources.  This motion is similar to the student success initiative that is coming from the Chancellor's office.   This has to go forth with adequate resources to make it happen.  

Rainer Newberry said if there were nothing there at all it would be worse.  This says, yes we support the changes but we need the financial support for this.  This way it sends a message. 

Ataur Chowdhury said that he likes the idea but not the way it is being proposed that one size fits all.  Difference subject require difference thing.  This affects people in math and English.  He also spoke of the requirement for prerequisites.

Cathy Cahill stated that as someone who teaches Chemistry, students do need algebra and the ability to read and understand or they are toast.  Chemistry unenrolls students that don’t have the prerequisites.  Cathy stated that we have it in the catalog but banner won’t hold students to the prerequisites.  

Linda Hapsmith said this spring the Advising Center will be involved in the ACT process and will be getting data from courses.  In the advising manual there is a chart that is based on the norms from five years ago, about the current passing rate of students.  Mandatory placement is very important for developmental math or English or reading, but she does have a problem with prerequisite for all core courses.  Many core courses have prerequisites.  

Rainer indicated that the intention of the motion is built on two features.  One is that our core science courses require certain minimal skills in algebra.  In the same way, all of the core humanities courses require minimal skills in reading and writing.  None of our core courses are at a level below the freshman college level.  The standards requested are essential that a student recognize that they are not equipped to take a core humanities classes unless they are at the level of freshman reading and writing.  Similarly, with the core science courses across the board there are certain minimum requirements about the ability to do algebra.  There is no point in encouraging students to go through each core course thinking that this one will not have that requirement.  All of our core classes are at the freshmen level.

Cindy stated the Enrollment Management Task Force request that we go to a selected admission of the baccalaureate.  This is to define what a student will do if they don’t make that particular cut.  Selected admission doesn't mean that those students don't still come to UAF.  In response to that, Paul Reichardt asked that we clarify the mandatory placement motion passed a couple of years ago and put teeth into it.  We mean this to be something transparent to students and faculty.  One other comment is that students in a significant number come in at the developmental level.  ACT studies indicated that students placed at under college level are coming to us unprepared.  This is one way of making explicit our requirement. 

Linda Hapsmith agreed in theory.  She feels that what is going to happen is that BA students will be gravitating toward courses that require English 111 as a prerequisite.  The BS students will be out of luck.  

Patty Gray said it is hard to understand why you don’t want it to be blended.  I am thinking at least English 111 and miss why you don’t want it to be a blanket requisition.  Why would they not want students to be able to read and write?

Marjorie Illingworth said her concern is that there won’t be classes for these students at the developmental level to take.  There are courses offered that would strengthen these students so they are not the ones getting halfway through the semester and dropping out.    

Jim Collins said he would vote for the motion.  At this university every instructor should assume from the get go that the students are out there with the critical math and computer skills.  Students without those skills, let's bring them up to that level first, then transfer success.  If our students without these skills consistently succeed in our core classes, it says something about the core classes.  

Ataur stated he was against the mandatory placement.  He doesn't believe we need a blanket statement that fits all.  Cindy pointed out that it does say placement into appropriate developmental or core classes must be done with the help of an advisor.  We know that placement tests are not perfect.  The advisor is a key part of this placement.  These are minimum and students should be ready to take DEVM 105 or ENGL 111.  This is to try and set a kind of minimum bar.  Other courses, like Physics have higher prerequisites that are stated.  We are not trying to undermine something that is already in place, we are trying to help students and support the work of the advising center.  

Mike Davis asked if we are going to change the catalog for all core courses that they to have a prerequisite of English 111.  Paul clarified that English 111 is not a core course it is placement into English 111.  Jane Weber indicated that this is intended to go into effect in Fall 2007.  Mike Davis indicated that in the rural college catalog it should be in there in black and white so they won’t have to figure it out.  Cindy asked if it would helpful to say phased in by fall 2007.  

Heinz Wiechen said that this is vague and it would be better to have prerequisites listed for all core courses.  Linda Hapsmith indicated that Tim Stickel said that they would be able to enforce this in banner.  Rainer said that it is complicated but in the short time Tim has agreed to put resources into identifying courses that students have sign up for without the appropriate prerequisite and getting that information to the instructor.  It will then be up to the instructor to drop the student.  Ultimately it is our goal to get all the MAUs in agreement about this in which came it can be done by Banner so that students can sign up for courses unless they have the appropriate placement.  Jane indicated that dropping students after they registrar is essentially a stop gap.  

Ataur said the Advising Center does a good job and we should give them some respect that they deserve.  We are treating students like they don’t know what they are doing.  Cathy said that when they come in as freshmen they don’t have a clue what they are doing.  We can put it in black and white and then we can hold them responsible.  By putting it in writing they will know what the rule are and then they can decide if they want to mess themselves up.  

The motion passed with a vote of 24 yes and 2 nays. 

MOTION:  
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the Mandatory Placement Policy (Senate meeting #116, May 5, 2003) to read:

CAPS - Addition
[[   ]]  -  Deletion

Mandatory Placement

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

STUDENTS WITHOUT APPROPRIATE STANDARDIZED TEST SCORES (ACT/SAT/COMPASS/ASSET), ADVANCED PLACEMENT CREDITS, TRANSFER CREDITS, OR PREREQUISITE COURSEWORK MUST HAVE UAF-APPROVED PLACEMENT TEST SCORES PRIOR TO REGISTERING FOR CLASSES THEIR FIRST SEMESTER AT UAF.  STUDENTS MAY NOT ENROLL IN CLASSES UNLESS THEY MEET THE PLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS.   PLACEMENT INTO APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENTAL OR CORE CLASSES MUST BE DONE WITH THE HELP OF AN ADVISOR.  STUDENTS WHO ENROLL IN A COURSE WITHOUT MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS WILL BE WITHDRAWN FROM THE COURSE BY FACULTY INITIATED WITHDRAWAL.  

FOR PLACEMENT INTO ANY DEVELOPMENTAL MATH COURSE, OR ANY COURSE SATISFYING CORE MATH REQUIREMENTS, PREREQUISITE COURSES AND/OR PLACEMENT EXAMS MUST BE TAKEN WITHIN ONE CALENDAR YEAR PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE COURSE.     

STUDENTS MAY NOT ENROLL IN PERSPECTIVES ON THE HUMAN CONDITION COURSES UNLESS THEY MEET THE PLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR ENGLISH 111 (INCLUDING READING).   STUDENTS MAY NOT ENROLL IN CORE SCIENCE CLASSES UNLESS THEY HAVE PLACEMENT AT DEVM 105 OR ABOVE AND PLACEMENT INTO ENGLISH 111.  

THE UAF FACULTY SENATE REITERATES ITS REQUIREMENT THAT FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR ACADEMIC RESOURCES TO ASSIST MANDATORY PLACEMENT OF STUDENTS AT UAF BE INCREASEDTO AN ADEQUATE LEVEL PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION.

EFFECTIVE:  	Fall 2006, with phase in completed no later than Fall 2007.

RATIONALE:  	Mandatory testing, advising, and placement have been identified as elements which have a strong correlation with increased student success in college-level coursework.  A motion to phase in mandatory placement in appropriate Developmental Education courses was approved by the UAF Faculty Senate on May 5, 2003.  

Further, the additions more clearly spell out the implicit expectations for Core 100-level courses at UAF—namely, that a student has sufficient academic preparation to be able to complete college-level English and math classes.

Note: Additional Banner augmentation to support prerequisite and test compliance will need to be coordinated with UAA and UAS. The UAA Faculty Senate recently approved a similar motion on Mandatory Placement.

The Developmental Studies committee will work with the Department of Developmental Education, the Math department, the English department, and other affected departments and committees to develop guidelines for enforcement of placement.

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

B.	Motion to amend the grading policy and GPA computation to include +/-'s, submitted by Curricular Affairs 

Rainer thought everyone was aware of the issue and the sub-issues associated with the motion.   Personally, he thinks it doesn't address what would happen to various aspects of student life that are GPA attendant, like Honors and probation.  A useful amendment would be to add that during the fall semester Curricular Affairs is charged to look into possible GPA cut-offs related to the new system.  

Patty Gray what about allowing students during the transition period to petition if the grade point cuts them out.  Rainer stated that could be a possibility Curricular Affairs might come up with.  It would be worthwhile to think about the various option and how best to deal with them. 

Paul Layer indicated that on April 19 the ASUAF Senate past two resolutions.  Resolution 166-021 and 166-022A.  Paul read the resolutions.  The first one did not support the implementation of the proposed +/- grading system because of the impact on A and C grades.  The second resolution requested a change so that an A+ will be a 4.3.  Paul noted that under regents policy an A is 4.0 and an A+ is 4.0, there is no 4.3.  

Rainer indicated that he was at the ASUAF Senate meeting and explained some aspects of the grading policy including that it would not be retroactive.  He also pointed out regents policy is 4.0.  He thinks that this is something that should be investigated.  There are universities that do have 4.3.  Details like this could be addressed over the course of the fall semester and incorporated into the catalog.  This is one aspect to look at instead of changing GPA's required for honors students.  We ought to address these kinds of questions.  Paul indicated this policy would not go into effect until Fall 2007 when the new catalog would be printed.  

Ataur Chowdhury doesn’t support the motion.  He stated that we are trying to distinguish grades based on absolute numbers.  This is not good for the students.  If someone gets a D- he gets a passing grade in the course. 

Liz Brown personally doesn’t like this motion.  If we are going to give an A+ we ought to give F- to balance.  The faculty members she talked with were supportive of the motion.  The faculty would like to differentiate between the 89 B and the 81 B.  

Anna Berge voiced what she has heard from other faculty members--the ones that are not voting and may not play into this discussion--they are saying why is this an important issue.  If you want to give them +/- then do it and if you don’t want to do it, then don't.

Anumpa Prakash felt that we could have a system that is zero to 100.  Are we simplifying it just for grade inflation or because our system can’t handle more than four grades?   Instructors need to have that gradation.  We need to justify to yourself as an instructor that you are being fair to students.  

Heinz Wiechen agreed with Anumpa and indicated that grading in Europe goes from 0 to 100 percent.  

As a point of information, Paul Layer indicated that Juneau does use GPA's plus minus and Anchorage does not.  

Cathy Cahill indicated that she would like to have the option to use them.   

Paul Layer said some universities do have 4.3.  There is no standardization in the US.  He's been asked to evaluate students that have a 4.1 GPA.  Cathy stated that the University of Washington uses .5 increments but does not give a 4.5. 

The motion passed with a vote of 20 yeas, 6 opposed, and 2 abstentions.

MOTION: 
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the grading policy and grade point average (GPA) computation to include +/-'s as specified in University Regulations R10.04.09.

	EFFECTIVE:  	Fall 2007

RATIONALE:  	Plus/minus grades allow for more accurate instructor feedback to students.  The majority of four-year colleges and universities use the plus/minus grades system.  In a recent UAF referendum faculty supported changing to +/-'s by a nearly 3:1 margin.

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

UNIVERSITY REGULATION	R10.04.09

Numerical Equivalencies for Grades

A+ = 4.0 	A = 4.0 	A- = 3.7
B+ = 3.3 	B = 3.0 	B- = 2.7
C+ = 2.3 	C = 2.0 	C- = 1.7
D+ = 1.3 	D = 1.0 	D- = 0.7
F = 0.0

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

C.	Motion to approve a Minor in Global Studies, submitted by Curricular Affairs 

Rainer stated that it was an interdisciplinary minor, which gives students an opportunity to look into different aspects of courses that have a common theme of global studies.  The motion passed with no objection.    

MOTION:
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve a Minor in Global Studies.    

	EFFECTIVE:  	Fall 2006 

RATIONALE: 	See full program proposal #155 from the Spring 2006 review cycle on file in the Governance Office, 312 Signers' Hall.

Requires 16-18 credits from two or more departments, selected from one of four tracks as an area of emphasis and requires a civic engagement/internship project of 1-3 credits. 

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

The following four motion were withdrawn from the agenda.  

D.	Motion to approve a Certificate in Automotive Technology, submitted by Curricular Affairs 

E.	Motion to approve an Associate of Science degree program, submitted by Curricular Affairs 

F.	Motion to approve a Certificate in Veterinary Science, submitted by Curricular Affairs 

G.	Motion to approve an A.A.S. in Construction Management, submitted by Curricular Affairs 

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

H.	Motion to approve a Bachelor of Emergency Management, submitted by Curricular Affairs 

Rainer Newberry stated this proposed degree program is an improved version of the BT degree with a management emphasis.  The BT changes were shot down because it was within the SOM and there were issues involved with that.  The idea here is a way of combining expertise in technical fire fighting skill with management skills.

Shirish asked how this degree impacts the accreditation of the BA or BBA program.  Rainer indicated this was a different degree and will not jeopardize accreditation.  Shirish asked if this was with out any additional faculty.  Rainer indicated that all the faculty are in place and it uses the existing faculty in a way to create an interdisciplinary degree to prepare potential fire chiefs for not only the technical aspects of fire fighting but the managerial and political fields.  Shirish stated that when you stretch the faculty time into multiple programs, the accreditation body is going to look at it as faculty is diluted.  

Jim Collins stated that he was original opposed because it is not a business degree.  However, it is needed in the community.  

Anna I think that the idea of the BEM is very good.  It is suppose to be broader than just training for fire chiefs.  To pair it with management background so that they are not just emergency responders but people that can manage and lead.   Her issue is with the choice of courses.  They seem a little bit random, and having a minor paired with it rather than having all these courses as part of a major.   

The motion passed with 2 abstentions.

MOTION:
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve a Bachelor's of Emergency Management (B.E.M) degree program.    

	EFFECTIVE:  	Fall 2006 and/or
		Upon Board of Regents' Approval.

RATIONALE: 	See full program proposal #202 from the Spring 2006 review cycle on file in the Governance Office, 312 Signers' Hall.

Complete 33 credits of major requirements from the UAF Emergency Services A.A.S. degree or any regionally accredited institution AAS Fire Science degree with a cumulative GPA of 2.25 or higher; requires 40 credits in major complex courses in ACCT, ECON, BA, PS; 15 credits in minor complex of Leadership and Civic Engagement; 9 credits of electives from list of PS, HIST, RD courses; total credits of 126-128.

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

I. 	Motion to approve the Unit Criteria for the College of Engineering and Mines (CEM), submitted by Unit Criteria 

Glenn Chappell introduced the motion.  After revisions, the committee agreed to forward the criteria.  They are concerned, however, that unit criteria offer more concrete guidance to new faculty in regards to expectations and how they are judged for promotion and tenure.  

The motion passed with no objection.  

MOTION:
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve the Unit Criteria for the College of Engineering and Mines (CEM).  

	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately
				Upon Chancellor Approval

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

Note:  A complete copy of the criteria can be found in the agenda.  

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

VIII	A.	Remarks by Chancellor S. Jones   

Chancellor Jones spoke about the financially interdependent partners.  He thanked Abel for withdrawing the censure motion.  They have enjoyed a very positive conversation regarding the issue.  His actions did not intend to subvert faculty governance or constrain anyone's freedom of expression.  The official University of Alaska position on the Senate bill was that we want to retain our ability to extend benefits to financially interdependent partners, because it helps us to attract and retain outstanding employees.   It is important to our university to maintain that benefit.  On March 7 Ann Ringstad sent an email to me suggesting that things were moving along in Juneau and that advocacy on this issue at this time is not advised.  When Abel interpreted that as an attempt to stifle faculty action.   What I should have done is immediately picked up the phone, call Abel, and explained my intent.  Instead I acted defensively and that resulted in escalating what we both would have agreed was a non-issue.   Likewise I have asked Abel to give me a call when he sees what he views as an odd or troublesome action or statement.   The Chancellor used entire Senate through the leadership to do the same thing.  With respect to where that legislation stands now, that particular legislation has died and instead there is something in place that has not reached the floor that defines what marriage means in the state of Alaska.  

The second item the Chancellor spoke about was a series of listening sessions.  This morning he met with the Alaska Region Supercomputer Center (ARSC).  That was the 18th group.  That came about as a result of visiting with many schools and colleges and institutions.  He would like to go through the topics that have repeatedly come up and those that surprised him and put them into some musing that he will post on the web in next two to three weeks.  Some of them include:  
 - Quantity and quality of space available for us for instruction and research.  
 - Some units feel that faculty numbers have slipped to the point that we are at risk of falling below some critical threshold level of being able to hold together the critical mass for instruction, research and service.  
 - There are some feelings that our service units focus on burdensome and bureaucratic requirements instead of service.  
 - There is concern about efficiency and duplication across the university.  
 - Many brought up concerns about the indirect cost recovery. 
 - Unfunded mandates--such as our decision to increase the graduate student assistantship and stipend level after the funding streams have been put into place.  
 - Many suggested that it may be time to revisit our Fund One allocation to units.
 - Performance based budgeting--people want to know more about it.
 - Another topic suggested that we have good ideas and complaints and we have no mechanism to transmit those complaints and good ideas so that they land on our desk.   

His intent is to take the ideas, make some sense of them and transmit them to you so that they make sense and also work within the unit leaders to find a way to identify and define what the real issues are and then make a positive difference by addressing them.  

Sine thanked the Chancellor for his clarification of Ann Ringstad's email.  

	B.	Remarks by Provost P. Reichardt	

Paul Reichardt spoke on four topics.  The first was central tuition assistance for the military.  The military is now requiring that anyone wanting tuition assistance with the army be registered through their system.  We now have to come up with a way to follow their protocol in terms of handling students, courses, etc.   

Several things have happened or are being spoken about in terms of doctorial level education.  We have recently received the go ahead from the Northwest Commission to implement the Ph.D. program in Psychology as devised as a collaborate arrangement between UAF and UAA.  There has also been a lot of work in the area of "grow our own" in terms of future faculty and Ph.D.  At the Systemwide level there is money that has been set aside for our existing faculty and staff that are interested in completing doctoral degrees.  A group is working on creating guidelines for the allocation of those funds.  They are also working with a consultant, Graham Smith, to develop approaches to attract students who have an interest in Alaska Native issues and Alaska Native Education.  There is renewed discussion  about what we might be able to do in the way of doctorial level education and the whole area of leadership.  

The International Polar Year (IPY) - The President set aside money for three-year pos- doctoral positions throughout the UA system.  Recently 15 post-doc positions were offered.  Eleven will have the faculty mentor at UAF, the other four at UAA or UAS.  UAA has received a gift from NILA that is funding graduate stipends for IPY related projects. 

Last fall there was an unfortunate incident where there were disagreements between a faculty member and University Relations about who had what to say about the advertisement of seminars and public events on campus.  After discussions between principally Carla Browning for University Relations and Roy Bird for the standpoint of faculty they reached an agreement on the wording of guidelines for the way that University Relations will deal with public announcements.  The guidelines will be posted on the website before the end of the week.  Carla will let Sheri know so that faculty can be alerted to those guidelines.  

Patty Gray asked how many of the IPY post-doc were awarded to social science.  Paul didn't have that information but thought that a couple went to the social sciences.  They are distributed somewhat among disciplines and also among the campuses.  

When asked about the doctorate in leadership, Paul indicated that the traditional graduate program in leadership has been educational leadership for principals and superintendents.  There is a pretty vigorous national discussion about the programs and if this is what we should be doing.  What interests him about a Ph.D. program in leadership is what would be the content, what is the research element, and how do you define who is a qualified faculty to be a mentor.   Paul indicated that Susan Henrichs would be the best entry point.

IX	Governance Reports 

	A.	Staff Council - Maya Salganek

The Staff Council report was moved up on the agenda. 

	B.	ASUAF - Joe Blanchard 

Paul Layer indicated that Patrick Frymark presented two resolutions on the plus/minus grading option.  They can be found at: http://asuaf.org/modules/Student_Government/stugov/leg_disp.cgi?leg_id=427 and http://asuaf.org/modules/Student_Government/stugov/leg_disp.cgi?leg_id=428

	C.	GSO - Susan Hazlett

No one was available to give a report.  

X	Guest Speakers

A.	Mike Humphrey and Jim Johnsen, UA Human Resources

Jim Johnson spoke about the new University retirement plans.  The University has developed a new defined contribution program that goes into effect July 1, 2006.  So all new faculty and staff will have the option to select the new defined contribution plan, which up to now has been available only to faculty and executive administrators.  The other option is the state's new defined contribution retirement programs for both PERS for staff and TRS for faculty.  Some of you may read that there are concerns about those defined contributions on the state's side and their compliance with IRS regulation.  We don’ t administer those plans so we don’t know if there really is a problem. We will see what happens with the state’s plan.  We are comfortable with administering our plans that has been blessed by the IRS for years.  One might ask about the competitiveness of these plans, whether the employer contribution rate is going to be sufficient to recruit and retain faculty and staff on this new plan.  Many faculty who selected the retirement contribution plan ORP did so when the rate was 12 percent.  That is the percentage we have set in the new ORP program.  That rate is about 40 percent higher than the national average for employer contributions to defined contribution retirements in higher education.  Only one state is higher.   We feel that it is quite effective at recruitment and retention and will continue to be.  Another element of the new plan is that we are requiring vesting for the first time for the employer contribution.  That vesting period will be three years.  It is linked to the university pension, which will also have a three-year vesting period.  If a person wants that additional 7.65% they need to select the University ORP as opposed to the state's new plan.  They are trying to move employees off the state plans because the cost of those plans is not in our control.   

Mike Humphrey added that the component Jim neglected was they are still looking at a health care funding vehicle for the optional retirement plan.  They are looking at ways that pre-dollars can be put away to fund retirement health care.  That is another major component they are studying.

Jane Weber asked if people that are already in ORP would be able to select the health care option.  

The first goal is to make it available to new ORP people and then they will look at the practicality of rolling it out to all existing ORP participants.  Jim said they may be an opportunity for people to move from the current ORP to the new optional retirement plan with the medical benefit in it.  

Jim clarified that only those people hired after July 1, 2006 are subject to the new three-year vesting rule.  He also clarified that old ORP participants have the university pension on top of the ORP plan and it is also on top of and in addition to PERS and TRS.  The differences between the old and new ORP is there was no vesting in the old ORP.  The second difference is the rate setting method for the employer contribution.  Currently the rate setting method is a rolling three year average of the TRS contribution rate.  The new rate setting method for the new ORP is simply 12 percent.  

Jim Collins said that faculty in the School of Management have expressed a concern about possible proposals to cap the contribution on the old plan.  Jim said there is no plan.  It is a serious and complex problem involving state constitutional issues.  They are looking for other ways to deal with and manage those very high costs.  

Shirish asked if the medical benefits that will come with the new ORP are employee pre-taxed contribution and not employer contributions.  Jim stated that it is not decided at this point.  In the new Optional Retirement Plan we have said that it could be from the current employer contributions but we have left that open at this point.  

Paul Layer encouraged anyone to continue discussions with Mike and Jim.  

XI	Committee/Annual Reports

	A.	Curricular Affairs - Rainer Newberry 

The following report was submitted.  

Curricular Affairs Committee REPORT 2005-2006  

There’s been the usual dribble.  In addition, here’s what we’ve accomplished:
1. Significant changes (improvements!) in the probation/disqualification requirements
     
2.  Helped get ‘Occupational Certificates of Completion/Occupational Endorsement’ through the Faculty Senate and onto the BOR

3.  Approved 4 years of Academic calendars—a compromise between starting as late as possible and ending as early as possible, retaining the Thursday start and Springfest.

4.  Helped create legislation to reinstated NB and ‘I that turns into F’   Persuaded registrar to make on-line instructor withdrawal possible.

5. Endorsed ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE recommendations to (a) raise admission requirements and (b) enforce prerequisites for core classes.  Steered both through the Faculty Senate.
    
6. + / - grades  This was the major effort of the year, starting with trying to get discussion going through individual departments (semi-successful), getting a campus-wide discussion going (not very successful), getting tons of emails sent to chairperson (fairly successful), and getting a faculty referendum (semi-successful).    The biggest hurdles were (a) getting information out to faculty (e.g., BOR sets grade numeric equivalents, not us, repeat at least 30 times) and (b) getting a significant number of informed faculty to express a preference.  Still a cliff-hanger, as faculty senate has yet to vote….

Things we started but haven’t finished and need to take up next year:

1.	If +/- passes, we should look at the gpa requirements for honors, probation, etc., and (or) think about approaching the BOR RE A+ = 4.3.
2.	Practicum, externship, internship are terms used that are not defined in the course manual how many credits per hour per week should these entail?  How should they be defined?  A subcommittee started working on this, but ran out of time.  Essentially, credits for UAF courses are based on (X + Y + Z) where X = credits from contact hours, Y = credits from lab, and Z = credits from ‘others’ but ‘others’ is nowhere defined.
3.	 ‘Special topics’ courses are a one-time, target of opportunity means of bypassing the normal course review mechanisms.  They are explicitly not to be used more than once.  If it’s a good idea, it’s supposed to go through the trial course or new course approval process.  This is true for all courses except SUMMER SPECIAL TOPICS.  Should Summer special topics also be restricted to ‘just once’??
4.	Regulations for course stacking are pretty vague.  What can’t be stacked and the requirements for stacking special topics aren’t really addressed.
5.	Continuing crisis:  Curricular Affairs committee is unlike other Faculty Senate Committees inasmuch as it’s 2 committees in one: curricular affairs and curriculum review.  The chair of curriculum review is a member of curricular affairs and reports back RE problems in the whole business.  Learning the ropes (as it were) takes some time and yearly turnover isn’t good for the University.  This year there are 3 continuing members and all the new ones will be on 2-year stints.  There’s got to be a way to create continuity without simply making some poor schmuck be chairperson over and over and over and over.

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

	B.	Faculty Affairs - Jon Genetti 

A report was attached to the agenda. 

	C.	Unit Criteria - Glenn Chappell 

A report was attached to the agenda. 

	D.	Committee on the Status of Women - Jane Weber 

A report was attached to the agenda. 

	E.	Core Review - Mark Box

A report was attached to the agenda. 

	F.	Curriculum Review - Rainer Newberry

The following report was submitted.  

Curricular Review Committee REPORT 2005-2006  

There’s been the usual dribble.  But a whole lot more than usual.
Here are the major problems we’ve encountered:

1.	Stacked courses.   What can and can’t be stacked?  To what extent does an instructor need to show how it’s possible to teach two different levels at the same time without blowing away the lower level students or dumbing down the course?  Few instructors give much detail about how they intend to do so; commonly the only difference cited is a paper or larger paper at the end for the grad students.
2.	Course syllabi in general.  In many cases we’ve received class schedules as part of the syllabi which seemingly indicate that the instructor has NO IDEA of how to present the material and is planning to ‘wing it’.  
3.	Course level.  In several cases the course descriptions for 100-level courses appear to be at a level well below the 100-level. 
4.	‘Embedded content’.  Certificates require either a 3-credit course in each of (a) communications, (b) human relations and (c) computation OR that the equivalent is embedded in the curriculum.  To what extent are we to check that the embedded content is truly present in the absence of any evidence that it is either present or that the potential instructor is qualified to provide such?
5.	Courses for new programs.  A new program is likely to need/require new courses.  These courses in general haven’t gone through the trial course or special topics routes, but are rather just dreamed up.  (If there was a program in existence, the courses would presumably go through the trial or special topics routes).  These proposed courses are necessarily nebulous, yet they’re supposed to receive the same degree of scrutiny as courses in existing programs.  Basically there’s a problem here: the program can’t be approved unless the courses are approved, but the courses can’t be tried out unless there is a program.  It’s not fair to students to subject them to courses for which the instructor is still trying to figure out how to present the subject matter—but how else can totally new programs be created?  We have yet to resolve this conundrum.
6.	Curricular Review committee is made up of the chairs of individual School/college curricular review committees.  Commonly the chair is a new or nearly-new faculty member who has received zero training or assistance from the previous chair.  Bringing new chairs up to speed takes at least half of the year; during which time they typically ‘rubber stamp’ course and program applications instead of thoroughly reviewing them.  This committee then spends an enormous amount of time dealing with problems that should have been rectified at the school/college level.  There’s got to be a better way to educate the new chairs.

The net result is, it’s already May and we’ve yet to finish reviewing several programs and courses.  This is not acceptable.

Here’s some progress we’ve made:

There’s significant confusion about what needs to be filled out and how to go about doing so.  
1. 	Susan Todd has made a stab at a new form.  We need to move forward on this.  
2.	Several committee members have worked on some additions to the ‘course and degree procedures manual’ that would give more examples and explanations.  Ditto the above.

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

	G.	Developmental Studies - Cindy Hardy/ Joe Mason

A report was attached to the agenda. 

	H.	Faculty Appeals & Oversight - Larry Duffy

A report was attached to the agenda. 

	I.	Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement – Larry Roberts  

The following report was distributed as a handout.  

Faculty Development, Assessment, and Improvement Committee

Meeting Minutes
April 17, 2006

Meeting was called to order at 1:05pm

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

Agenda items:	 	Roll-call
			Approval/changes to of minutes
			Report from Joy
			Old business
			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 minutes of the March meeting were approved with one change: under new business it was stated that the committee would work holistically on the issue of review of teaching by students and peer review of instruction to prepare suggestions for the senate, however, it should read – an ad hoc committee was formed to include Larry Roberts, John Kawula, and Christie Cooper.  Further business was conducted resulting in the following decisions and shared information.

Report from Joy:	This week a STARLINK session will be down linked into Rasmussen 341: “Developmental Education: Insuring Academic Success.” It will then be available for two weeks via web cast at www.starlinktraining.org.

New faculty orientation for the fall will take place on 8/23. Following the luncheon there will be an open house in the Wood Center ballroom with informational tables for services on campus and from providers in the community. Everyone, not just new faculty, will be invited to the open house - details to follow.

Old business:	First, discussion of distance education assessment was conducted informally. Joy commented that this committee’s role is to assure that full-time faculty who also teach distance courses get valid useful assessment that can be used for tenure and promotion.
	
	Marjorie indicated that there are problems with assessment in the audio courses. Formal assessment often results in virtually nothing being returned from the students and different forms of feedback are not valid in a tenure and promotion file.

Old business cont.:	Joy will contact CDE to see what if anything is being done there for assessment.
		
Next, discussion of a panel/forum to address a Gray and Bergman article provided by the Provost addressing student evaluation of faculty was discussed. John was tasked with getting a clean electronic copy of the article that could be dispersed to all members of the committee and eventually to faculty prior to such an event. The need for clarification on the goal for such an event was discussed. Larry felt that the core of such an event would be to generate academic discussion with the greatest number of participants.

Marjorie volunteered to join the ad hoc committee formed last month to explore faculty assessment issues as a whole.

Finally, there was a call for a skeleton crew to talk through the planning of a second education conference for next year. Joy suggested that some of her budget may be available to help support the conference; however, it would need to be inclusive and not restricted to CRCD. Larry indicated that this year’s conference was a place to start, and he would welcome broader collaboration and wants to create and even more inclusive conference for next year.

New business:	Larry commented that he had read through half of Derek Bok’s book “Our Underachieving Colleges” and that it was excellent. Bok provides detail rather than generalities, making the book interesting to read and in his mind an important companion to “Academic Duty.” Joy indicated that the speech Bok made at the Association of American Colleges and Universities conference she attended is now available as a pod cast. She is working on the technical aspects of downloading the speech and making it available to UAF faculty and administration.

Marjorie thanked Larry for his leadership this year and emphasized the excellence of the education conference he organized.

Joy discussed the department chairs’ training held in Anchorage on April 6th.  The speaker Walt Gmelch was excellent and she is considering bringing him up to UAF to do a session with all the departmental chairs.

The meeting was adjourned at 1:45pm.
Next Meeting:  Undetermined - Fall 2006 
Respectfully submitted by:  Christie Cooper, Secretary

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

	J.	Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee – Cathy Cahill

A report was attached to the agenda. 

XII	Members' Comments/Questions -  none

XIII	Announcement of Award Recipients     

	A.	Announcement of the Outstanding Senator of the Year Award 

Sine Anahita was presented with a framed resolution as the Outstanding Senator of the Year.  

	B.	Announcement of Usibelli Awards 

The Usibelli nominees and recipients were listed in the agenda.  

	C.	Announcement of Emeriti Faculty Awards 

The faculty receiving Emeriti status were listed in the agenda. 

	D.	Recognition of Senate Service

Paul Layer recognized the committee chairs with a certificate of appreciation.  

	E.	Presentation of Resolution of Appreciation for Paul Layer 

Shirish Patil presented Paul Layer with a framed Resolution of Appreciation on behalf of the Senate.  

XII	Adjournment of the 2005-2006 Faculty Senate

Paul thanked the Senate members and entertained a motion to adjourn at 3:40 p.m.  Paul passed the gavel to Shirish.

XVI	2006-2007 Faculty Senate Members Take Their Seats

	A.	Roll Call of 2006-2007 Members 

Members Present:  
	Members Absent: 	
Allen, Jane 	Burleson, Derick	
Anderson, Jodie	Freymueller, Jeff	
Bandopadhyay, Sukumar	Rosenberg, Jonathan	
Berge, Anna		
Bierman, Peter		
Bret-Harte, Marion		
Brown, Liz		
Cahill, Cathy		
Chowdhury, Ataur		
Collins, Jim		
Cooper, Christine		
Daku, Michael		
Dankekar, Abhijit		
Davis, Mike		
Dehn, Jonathan		
Deters, Pamela		
Duguay, Claude		
Genetti, Jon		
Illingworth, Marjorie		
Iken, Katrin		
Kingsley, Ilana		
Konar, Brenda		
Lardon, Cecile		
Lurman, Julie		
Newberry, Rainer		
Patil, Shirish		
Rickard, Anthony		
Roberts, Larry		
Sousa, Marsha		
Weber, Jane		
Wiechen, Heinz		
Zhang, Mingchu		
Zhou, Thomas 		
Zhou, Wendy 		

	B	President's Remarks - Shirish Patil 

Shirish welcomed all the new senators and thanked all the senators who are continuing their service to the Senate.  He is looking forward to working with everyone.  All the work for the senate gets done at the committee level.  We tried to give preferences to your choices.  Handouts list the committee assignments.  As we break during the summer he would like everyone to think about a retreat during the fall to discuss senate business.  This would be in a different setting than a formal meeting.  We will discuss this in August when we come back.  

	C.	President-Elect Remarks - Jon Genetti 

Jon is looking forward to working with everyone and protecting Shirish's back for a year.  He would like the senate members to think about moving up and chairing one of the committee they are on.  

	D.	Public Comments - 

Mike Davis wanted to recognize Shirish Patil.  Those from Bristol Bay Campus appreciated Shirish's visit.  Mike presented Shirish with some salmon and a certificate for a day of fishing and a tide table.  He also presented a letter of appreciation from the staff and faculty out in Bristol Bay.  Mike brought salmon bookmarks for everyone else.

XVII.	New Senate Business 

A.	Motion to endorse 2006-2007 committee membership, submitted by Administrative Committee 

Shirish introduced the motion to endorse 2006-2007 committee membership.  The motion passed unanimously.  

MOTION:
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to endorse the 2006-2007 committee membership as attached.

	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately

RATIONALE:  	New Senate members' preference for committee selection were reviewed and weighted against membership distribution from schools and colleges.

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

2006 -2007 UAF FACULTY SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

STANDING COMMITTEES

Curricular Affairs
	Jodie Anderson, CRCD/CES (07)
	Anna Berge, CLA (07)
	Ataur Chowdhury, CNSM (07)
	Claude Duguay, CNSM (08)
	Ilana Kingsley, CLA (08)
	Rainer Newberry, CNSM (08)
	Tony Rickard, SOEd. (07)
	Larry Roberts, CRCD (07)
	Marsha Sousa, CRCD (08)--convener

Faculty Affairs
	Sukumar Bandopadhyay, CEM (08)--chair
	Pamela Deters, CLA (08)
	Marion Bret-Harte, IAB (07)
	Liz Brown, SFOS (07)
	Jim Collins, SOM (07)
	Mike Davis, CRCD (07)
	Jonathan Dehn, GI (08)
	Jeff Freymueller, CNSM (08)
	Jonathan Rosenberg, CLA (08)
	Mingchu Zhang, SNRAS (07)

Unit Criteria
	Peter Bierman, CRCD/CES (08) 
	Brenda Konar, SFOS (08)
	Debasmita Misra, CEM (07)
	Lee Taylor, CNSM (08)
	Thomas Zhou, SOM (08)
	vacant, CLA (08)

PERMANENT COMMITTEES

Committee on the Status of Women
	Sine Anahita, CLA (07)
	Cindy Hardy, CRCD (07)
	Alexandra Fitts, CLA (08)
	David Koester, CLA (08)
	Cecile Lardon, CLA (08)--Senate rep. 
	Brenda Norcross, SFOS (08)
	Renate Wackerbauer, CNSM (07)
	Diane Wagner, CNSM (08)
	Jane Weber, CRCD (08)--Senate rep.--convener
	Wendy Zhou, CEM (07)

Core Review
	Jin Brown, Comm., CLA (08)--convener
	Christine Coffman, English, CLA (08)
	Karen Callahan, Social Sciences, CLA (07)
	Carrie Baker, Humanities, CLA (08)
	Suzan Hahn, Library
	Latrice Bowman, Math, CNSM (08)
	Michael Harris, Sciences, CNSM (07) 
	Other (08)

Developmental Studies Committee
	Betsy Taguchi, Kuskokwim Campus (06)
	Debbie Toopetlook, RSS 
	Victor Zinger, Bristol Bay Campus (07)
	Joseph Dupras, English  (08)
	John Creed, Chukchi Campus (06)
	Brian Rasley, Sciences (07)
	Cindy Hardy, Developmental Education (06)--convener
	Marjorie Illingworth, Tanana Valley (06)
	Ron Illingworth, Interior-Aleutians (06)
	Latrice Bowman, Math  (06)
	Linda Hapsmith, Advising Center 
	Joe Mason, Northwest Campus (06)
	Kelly Hite-McGee, SSSP 
	Kevin Kristoff, Rural campus student services 
	^Bernice Joseph, Exec. Dean, CRCD

Faculty Appeals & Oversight Committee
	Carol Barnhardt, SOEd. (07)
	Tom Clausen, CNSM (08)
	Goodwin Chukwu, CEM (08)
	Joel Irish, CLA (08)
	Terry Johnson, SFOS (08)
	Brenda Norcross, SFOS (07)
	Michael Pippenger, SOM (07)
	Julie Riley, CES (07)
	Milan Shipka, SNRAS (07)
	Norm Swazo, CLA (07)--convener
	vacant, CEM (07)
	vacant, CNSM (07)
	vacant, CRCD (08)
	vacant, SOEd (08)
	vacant, SNRAS (08)
	vacant, SOM (08)

Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement 
	Christine Cooper, CLA (08)
	Michael Daku, CLA (08)
	Dana Greci, CRCD 
	Susan Herman, SOM (07)
	Marjorie Illingworth, TVC (07)
	Julie Lurman, SNRAS (08)
	Joy Morrison, Faculty Development Office
	Channon Price, CNSM 
	Larry Roberts, CRCD (07)--convener

Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee 
	Derick Burleson, CLA (07)
	Cathy Cahill, CNSM (07)--convener
	Abhijit Dandekar, CEM (08)
	Patty Grey, CLA (07)
	Katrin Iken, SFOS (08)
	David Maxwell, CNSM - Math (07)
	Paul McCarthy, CNSM-Science (07)
	Laura Milner, SOM (07)
	Heinz Wiechen, CNSM (07)
	SOEd (08) 
	 Ex-Officio:	Susan Henrichs, Graduate Dean
			Pauline Wilson, Library
			Tim Stickel, Registrar

OTHER

UAF Governance Coordinating Committee
	Jon Genetti, President-Elect
	Shirish Patil, President

UAF Faculty Alliance Representatives
	Jon Genetti, President-Elect
	Paul Layer, Past-President
	Shirish Patil, President

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

B.	Motion to approve the 2006-2007 UAF Faculty Senate meeting calendar, submitted by Administrative Committee 

Shirish indicated the 2006 – 2007 calendar motion is similar to the current calendar.  Liz Brown asked about an August meeting.  Shirish indicated there is no meeting planned for August, he would like to hear from faculty when they return in August.  Liz indicated that rural faculty need to plan well in advance.  The motion passed without objection.  

MOTION:
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to adopt the following calendar for its 2006-2007 meetings.

	EFFECTIVE:   	Immediately

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

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

				UAF FACULTY SENATE
					2006-2007
				  Calendar of Meetings

Mtg. # 	Date     	Day      	Time    	Type

138     	9/18/06 	Monday	1:00 p.m.	audioconference

139     	11/6/06	Monday	1:00 p.m.	face-to-face 

140     	12/11/06	Monday	1:00 p.m.	audioconference

141     	2/5/07  	Monday	1:00 p.m.	audioconference

142    	3/5/07  	Monday	1:00 p.m.	face-to-face

143    	4/9/07  	Monday	1:00 p.m.	audioconference

144    	5/7/07  	Monday	1:00 p.m.	face-to-face

Location:  Wood Center Carol Brown Ballroom (face-to-face meetings)
	     Wood Center Conference Room C/D (audioconference meetings)

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

C.	Motion to authorize the Administrative Committee to act on behalf of the Senate during the summer months, submitted by Administrative Committee 

Shirish indicated that some of the motions from the previous Senate were not acted upon and would be looked at during the summer.  Many faculty will not be on contract or available during the summer but the Senate will continue its work.  This motion authorizes the Administrative Committee to act on behalf of the Senate.  The motion passes with no objection. 

MOTION:
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to authorize the Administrative Committee to act on behalf of the Senate on all matters within its purview, which may arise until the Senate resumes deliberations in the Fall of 2006.  Senators will be kept informed of the Administrative Committee's meetings and will be encouraged to attend and participate in these meetings.

	EFFECTIVE:   	May 1, 2006

RATIONALE: 	This motion will allow the Administrative Committee to act on behalf of the Senate so that necessary work can be accomplished and will also allow Senators their rights to participate in the governance process.

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

Shirish encouraged all Senate members to attend the Usibelli Awards ceremony. 

XVIII 	Adjournment - 

The meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m.

Tapes of this Faculty Senate meeting are in the Governance Office, 312 Signers' Hall if anyone wishes to listen to the complete tapes. 

Submitted by Sheri Layral, Faculty Senate Secretary.