MINUTES
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #143
Monday, April 9, 2006
1:00 p.m. - 3:15 p.m.
Wood Center Carol Brown Ballroom

I	Call to Order – Shirish Patil

Faculty Senate President Shirish Patil called the meeting to order at 1 p.m.

A.	Roll Call

Members Present:  
	Members Absent: 	
Allen, Jane 	Bandopadhyay, S.	
Anderson, Jodie	Cooper, Christine	
Berge, Anna	Freymueller, Jeff	
Bret-Harte, Marion	Kingsley, Ilana	
Brown, Liz		
Burleson, Derick (Gerri Brightwell)		
Cahill, Cathy	Others Present:	
Cascio, Julie	Hapsmith, Linda	
Chowdhury, Ataur	Hardy, Cindy	
Collins, Jim	Hershberger, Becky	
Daku, Michael	Jordan, Dan	
Dandekar, Abhijit (Debasmita Misra)	Jordan, Joe	
Davis, Mike	Karr, Forrest	
Dehn, Jonathan	Jones, Steve	
Deters, Pamela	Layral, Sheri	
Genetti, Jon	Lewis, Lane	
Iken, Katrin	McCrea, Scott	
Illingworth, Marjorie	McHenry, Sue	
Konar, Brenda	Poole, Jake	
Lurman, Julie	Raymond, Nate	
Maxwell, David	Reichardt, Paul	
Newberry, Rainer	Russell, Gabrielle	
Patil, Shirish	Sartz, Patrik	
Rickard, Anthony	Sharpton, Buck	
Roberts, Larry	Thomas, Dana	
Rosenberg, Jonathan		
Sousa, Marsha		
Weber, Jane		
Wiechen, Heinz 		
Zhang, Mingchu		
Zhou, Thomas		
Zhou, Wendy 		

Non-Voting Members Present:  
	Non-Voting Members Absent:	
Morrow, Phyllis - Dean, CLA	Madsen, Eric - Dean, SOEd	
Stepp, Jeff - Staff Council President	Stickel, Tim - Registrar	
Bult-Ito, Abel - UNAC	Gilkey, Sven - ASUAF	
Illingworth, Ron - ACCFT	Francis-Chythlook, Oceana - GSO	
	United Academics-Adjunct - vacant	

B.	Approval of Minutes to Meeting #142

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 minimum grade requirement for graduate students.
2.	Motion to amend the Grade Error Policy.
3	Motion to amend the Transfer Credit policy.
4.	Motion to amend the Governance Coordinating Committee (GCC) Procedures to add the Joint Committee on Student Success.  
B.	Motions Pending:  
1.	Motion to endorse the Report and Recommendations for Improving Developmental Education at UAF.

III	Public Comments/Questions   - none

IV	A.	President's Comments - Shirish Patil    

Shirish reported on the Vince Tinto workshop on Student Success.  We need to find commonalities among the three MAUs.  There is a budget request to support the student success project.  Student Success should be made part of the promotion/tenure process.  Need to document excellence in teaching and research.  This would require a change in the culture of the campus and faculty need to be more engaged with the students.  Of course, we need to reward those doing things to enhance student success in their classroom teaching and research.  It is a project that will never end as there will always be opportunities to improve.  It can be viewed as a multi-year project with opportunities for continuous quality improvement.  We need to start the project now.  How do we measure success?  There is some data in Banner.  Should we collect a mandatory survey question during registration?  Should student success be a performance-based matrix?  We need to develop a long-term partnership with K-12.  Things that can be implemented are engaged advising and a dedicated advisor program.  The next step is a vision for the student success project.  Shirish will present it to the Board of Regents in April.  Jeff Stepp, chair of the Staff Alliance, will bring up George Kuh in August for a follow-up discussion. 

Shirish met with President Hamilton about the VPAA search to discuss the strengthens and weaknesses of the four candidates who visited UA.   One of the candidates withdrew.  That leaves us with three candidates.  President Hamilton and the search committee agree on the top choices.  

Shirish attended the House Finance Subcommittee meeting and gave testimony in support of the university.  He encouraged everyone to testify before the Senate Finance Committee.  

There are two candidates for President Elect.  

The Heart Walk is on May 19.  If there is interest in a Faculty Senate team, please let him know. 

Parking Services is ready to print the new parking decals.  Faculty have complained about the nine-month decals.  The current decals start on September 1 and end on May 31.  There are two options being discussed:  starting on August 15 and ending on May 15 or August 20 to May 20.  Paul Reichardt suggested that it start on August 15 and end on May 31.  

Abel spoke about Vince Tinto's visit.  We can’t change the culture on campus unless we reward teaching and student success is part of the equation.  As a research university, we need to work very hard to not let teaching slide.  Ataur Chowdhury commented about the need for support for teaching assistants.  

	B.	President-elect's Comments - Jon Genetti  

Jon Genetti gave an update on the Instructional Technology Committee.  OIT is working on a document about an acceptable use of computing resources statement.  This will be a summary of the University Regulations.  He will forward the draft statement to the Senate.  

V	A.	Remarks by Chancellor Steve Jones   

Chancellor Jones stated that President Hamilton's report on predictable tuition said that now is not the time to move forward on this.  

Spring 2007 Management and Operating Review -- There are many items that need follow-up.  One is the BIOS building.  There has been considerable discussion about BIOS in Juneau.  The time is right now to put forward our campaign to promote the BIOS funding.  

Chancellor Jones gave a brief power-point presentation on UAF's financial trends over the past several years.  The Land Grant Trust Fund proceeds currently fund the UA Scholars program.  There is a decline in funds from USDA.  We are reaching a point where the state flat funding impacts the research growth curve.  Research is what distinguishes us from the other two MAUs.  We need to find a way to turn the curve back up.  Space is a constraint.  BIOS funding will come in stages and will create a domino effect.  The virology building will be two or three years in the future.  There is some space in the MIRL.  We might use more ATCO units.  Additional lease space off-campus had grown.  Another option is to work with a private developer to build on campus and lease the space to the university.  None of these are easy; none is an immediate fix.  We are overwhelmed with opportunities.  If we had the resources we could make some legacy contribution to the state.  Things like an International indigenous graduate institute, building our bio-medical programs, attaching better prepared students, creating a faculty center for teaching and learning, taking developmental education to a higher level.  All of these things require resources.  The IPY is another opportunity.  Everything we hear out of Juneau for FY08 is to have our fixed costs covered.  There may be increments in workforce development, allied health and in other program in the Anchorage area.  

Abel talked about student credit hours.  Chancellor Jones indicated there is some decline at the main UAF campus.  Ataur spoke about research dollars and the need to have matching funds.  Cathy Cahill said that overhead and staff benefits rates are a big concern in proposals.  Katrin Iken asked about the campus utility development plan, especially in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling on CO2 emissions.  The development plan favors coal burning because of financial costs.  There may be penalties for large CO2 emissions.  The other question is: is this the way we, as the prime Arctic University, want to go in terms of being a good example to Alaska and the nation?  Chancellor Jones suggested that the Senate invite Kathleen Schedler and Ro Bailey to address the issue.  

	B.	Remarks by Provost P. Reichardt  

Paul Reichardt indicated that he has received several questions on the Graduate School Dean – Susan’s intent is to fill it with one or two people next year on an interim basis.  She is considering some reorganization.  A national search will be conducted later.  

Use of banner to block registration to core course -- You can do it course by course, but the mechanism is difficult.  You must delete all courses that you don’t want to block.   UAF is willing to do that, but UAA and UAS are not.  The net result is that we will probably be delayed by a semester.  There is a system-wide group working on predictable tuition.  They have issued a report to President Hamilton.  It proposes three strategy to look at tuition:  1) look at predetermined tuition increases (e.g., 7%).  Each year the Regents would act and set out the increase for the next years.  2) Each cohort of students in the fall would have a set tuition that would stay with them for six years.  This might mean an increase of 15 percent.   3) Tuition is hiked by a certain percent for next fall and each of the following years.  None of them save students money or cost the university.  It is a matter of redistributing what we currently do.  

Program Review – There are some proposal for consideration.  Under the academic policy it states that the VPAA will annually provide to the President a list of degree programs with low or no enrollment.  The Provosts support the identification of these programs.  It would allow for a brief look at them and implement a program review if necessary.  Under regulation it allows the President to call for an exceptional review that would start immediately.  The Provosts were not very supportive of this approach.  

Paul spoke about the value of serving on the university-wide evaluation committees.  There is a need for more faculty to serve on the promotion/tenure and review committees.  It is a valuable service.  The role of the campus-wide committee is important to look at the file to bring parity across the campus.   

Last week there was a system-wide meeting on the uses of technology.   There are wonderful ideas about new technology.  What are the new ones we should add?   We have done a less than stellar job on the ones we currently have.   The meeting focused on how we go about implementing new technology.  

Liz Brown asked about tuition approaches used at other institutions.  Paul indicated they are difficult to implement.  Ataur asked about mandatory placement and the timetable for implementation.  

Heinz Wiechen said that a key element for a research institute is graduate students.  Funding agencies don't increase funds over the years of the project.  This leaves the PI's in a difficult position when tuition increases.  He asked about giving the students a tuition waiver.  Paul talked about the need to look at the total package for graduate students.  We need to get funding for the big research increment that the UA system is looking at.  We don't have the funds internally to pick up the research stipends.  

Ataur asked about technology and how much faculty were involved in the process.  Paul didn't think that any faculty were at the meeting.  Shirish indicated that was a good question to ask Joe Jordan.  

VI.	Consent Agenda

A.	Resolution of Recognition for the UAF rifle team, submitted by the Administrative Committee

The resolution was approved with the adoption of the agenda.  Dan Jordan and members of the rifle team were present to accept the framed resolution.  

RESOLUTION OF RECOGNITION

FOR THE 

UAF RIFLE TEAM

WHEREAS, The UAF Rifle Team won its ninth NCAA championship title in March 2007, and 

WHEREAS, The UAF Rifle Team successfully hosted the first NCAA Championship tournament in the state of Alaska, and 

WHEREAS, The UAF Rifle Team won the national title with a team aggregate score of 4,662 (air rifle and smallbore), and 

WHEREAS, The UAF Rifle Team was led by Christian Lejon, Matthias Dierolf, Matt Rawlings, and Patrik Sartz, and 

WHEREAS, six team members were named All-Americans with Dierolf, Lejon, Rawlings and Sartz earning first-team honors in air rifle and Becky Hershberger received second-team honors.  First-team honors in smallbore went to Dierolf, Lejon and Rawlings and Sartz and Jace Bures earned second-team honors, now 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the UAF Faculty Senate congratulates the 2006-2007 UAF Rifle Team as NCAA champion and commends the team's superior performance.  

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

VII	Governance Reports    

	A.	Staff Council - Jeff Stepp 

Jeff Stepp indicated that staff are excited about the proposed regulation for educational leave for staff members.  There are several plans on the table.  The idea is to prepare staff members for advancement.  It will provide a leave of absence.  

They continue to be involved in the HR redesign.  John Duhamel will provide a status report at the next Staff Council meeting.  Ro Bailey will continue discussion about the staff handbook and the HR redesign.  Rural Affairs Committee continues to advocate for training and development.  The formal request for tuition waivers to apply for CPM courses was denied.  However, Jim Johnson has proposed other possibilities to improve training and development opportunities.  Staff Council participated in a Saturday of Service at the Food Bank.  Staff Alliance traveled to Juneau to talk with legislators.  Their message was to fund the fixed costs.  There is opportunity for public testimony before the Senate Finance Committee.  The Health & Wellness Committee is working on expanding the LIFE program to provide more flexibility and options.  The new Staff Council President-Elect is Kayt Sunwood.  

Liz Brown asked is Staff Council was working on the cost differential for rural sites.  

	B.	ASUAF -Sven Gilkey 

Sven Gilkey was not available to give a report.  

	C.	United Academics - Abel Bult-Ito

Abel spoke on the health care negotiations.  Dan Walsh is the UAF representative on the bargaining team.  The United Academics health debt is being paid off and starting July 1 there should be a reduction in health care costs.  Open enrollment is soon.  United Academics is sending out an electronic survey to all faculty asking what are important issues to them and what the negotiation team should focus on when they start at the end of summer.  Jane Weber added that she and Ron Illingworth are also on the health care negotiations team.  Abel indicated that all the union groups are represented on the negotiation team.  

D.	Data Thomas – Student Success 

Dana Thomas spoke on the student success effort.  He is concerned about how to get the student success efforts rolling.  He distributed a handout, which gives some information from ACT about what works for student retention.   Retention practices related here are academic advising, first year programs, and learning support.  Dana asked the question about who should put together a recommendation about implementing a freshman seminar?  Faculty Senate obviously has a role in that discussion.  He encouraged the Faculty Senate committees to look at the various issues.  

Abel indicated that teaching of instructors in the classroom is a very important part of retention.  Dana said that we need to give teaching and learning more attention.  As part of the peer review do you look at participation in freshman progress reports?  Do you look at to see if syllabus requirements are followed?  These are simple thing we can do to help improve teaching and learning outcomes.  Cindy Hardy indicated that Developmental Studies Committee has been discussing its mission as a committee in relations to many of these items.  Cathy Cahill asked about how this fits in with what the UAF Vision Task Force in terms of teaching and learning for student success group came up with.    Many overlap with the community.  Dana will be paying attention to it.  Shirish indicated that the Governance Coordinating Committee now has a standing committee on student success.  We have to pull all the efforts together.  

VIII	New Business  

A.	Motion to modify the Guidelines for the Evaluation Process for Administrators, submitted by Faculty Appeals and Oversight

Norm was now available to discuss the motion.  Shirish indicated that the motion give a list of the two groups of administrators.  It simplifies the process of evaluation while making sure there is substantial input from staff and faculty in the evaluation of Group B Administrators.  The committee worked with the deans to come up with this motion.  Katrin asked about feedback to the faculty and staff about the evaluation.  Paul Reichardt indicated that is part of their personnel file, which is not public.  The supervisor of the administrator meets with the Senate Committee to discuss the evaluation.  That is a confidential discussion.  Ataur asked about the Group A administrators.  Paul indicated there is an ongoing review.  Ataur asked for clarification to what happens to the review and what kinds of actions will be taken.  Paul indicated that it was up to the supervisor.  Ataur thought something needed to be added to the motion.  A motion to refer it back to committee failed.  The motion then passed with 1 nay and 4 abstentions.  

MOTION:
========

The Faculty Senate moves to modify the "Guidelines for the Evaluation Process for Administrators" (Senate Meeting #115, 2003):

Group B Administrators:

In addition to being reviewed annually by his/her immediate Supervisor, "Group B" administrators are to undergo a 3-year comprehensive review. At a time designated by the Supervisor during the fall semester of the academic year of comprehensive review, the "Group B" administrator will submit a self-evaluation report to his/her Supervisor. The self-evaluation shall include: (1) comments on the annual performance evaluations; (2) a summary of his/her notable activities/accomplishments in the previous years; and (3) a statement of relevant goals/objectives relative to assigned or planned administrative duties for the upcoming years.  The Supervisor's evaluation shall include faculty and/or staff opportunity for comment on the "Group B" administrator's performance.  Comments received shall be referenced in anonymous and aggregate summary in the written evaluation provided to the "Group B" administrator.  The Supervisor will include, as part of the written evaluation, an appended workload assignment and/or statement of performance expectations for the "Group B" administrator for the subsequent review period.  A copy of the Supervisor's review, along with a summary statement of the process used to assure faculty/staff input into the evaluation, will be forwarded to the Faculty Senate Office by March 15 of the academic year the "Group B" administrator is scheduled for review.  The Faculty Appeals & Oversight Committee shall review the written evaluation in performance of its oversight function in administrator review.  

The following criteria will be used to determine which administrators are placed on or removed from the "Group B" list. As vacancies and appointments occur, changes to the list shall be determined annually by the Provost in consultation with the Faculty Senate President. 

• "Group B" administrator responsibilities must be administrative in nature.
  ("Group B" administrators must not be Union members, UNAC or ACCFT).

• "Group B" administrators report to "Group A" administrators. 
  ("Group A" administrators report to the Chancellor, Provost, or a Vice
  Chancellor.)

• "Group B" administrators supervise faculty and are involved in faculty
   performance reviews.

A current list of both "Group A" and "Group B" administrators follows.

"Group A" Administrators (report to Chancellor, Provost or a Vice Chancellor)

Braddock	Joan	CNSM, Dean		
Barnes	Brian	IAB Director		
Henrichs	Susan	Graduate School Dean		
Huesmann	James	Library, Dean		
Joseph	Bernice	CRCD, Vice Chancellor		
Hinzman	Larry	IARC, Director		
Jonaitis	Aldona	Museum, Director		
Lewis	Carol	SNRAS, Dean		
Madsen	Eric	SOED, Dean		
Marr	Wayne	SOM, Dean		
Morrow	Phyllis	CLA, Dean		
Reichardt	Paul	Provost		
Sharpton	Virgil "Buck"	Vice Chanc. for Research		
Smith	Roger	GI, Director		
Wiesenburg	Denis	SFOS, Dean		
Williams	Frank	ARSC, Director		
Vacant/Acting		CEM, Dean		

"Group B" Administrators (report to the above "Group A" administrators)

Allee	Brian	SFOS Sea Grant	Director	
Castellini	Michael	SFOS IMS	Assoc. Dean	
Caulfield	Rick	TVC 	Director	
Christie	David	SFOS GURU	Director	
Connor	Billy	CEM, INE	Director	
Cullenberg	Paula	SFOS MAP	Program Leader	
Foote	Victoria	RC Health Programs	Director	
Happ	George	IAB, INBRE	Program Dir. 	
Haugen	Lee	NWC 	Director	
Horner-Miller	Barbara	ARSC	Assoc. Dir. 	
Johnson	Clara	IAC 	Director	
Karulkar	Pramod	DPP, OEM	Director	
Labelle-Hamer	Annette	GI Remote Sensing (ASF)	Director	
Madison	Curt	CDE/IL	Director	
McLean	Deborah	BBC 	Director	
Mitchell	G. Allen	AFES	Assoc. Dir.	
Mohatt	Gerald	IAB, CANHR	Director	
Pete	Pinney	CES	Interim Director	
Pete	Mary	KUC 	Director	
Pullar	Gordon	CRCD, DANRD	Director	
Saito	Linc	CC 	Director	
Vacant/Acting		SFOS, FITC	Director	
Smoker	William	SFOS Fisheries	Director	
Sugai	Susan	IARC	Assoc. Dir. 	
White	Daniel	CEM, INE	Director	
Whitledge	Terry	SFOS, IMS	Director	

EFFECTIVE:  	Fall Semester 2007

RATIONALE: 	Because of the lack of uniform and consistent review of Group B administrators, the need for adequate criteria for identification of administrators in this category, the need to assure annual as well as comprehensive review with faculty/staff input, and the need to diminish Faculty Appeals & Oversight direct control of the process, the Faculty Appeals & Oversight Committee proposes revision to the process as stipulated.

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

B.	Motion to revise how pre-majors move to major status, submitted by Curricular Affairs

Marsha Sousa indicated that this motion clarifies what students must accomplish to move from pre-major to major status.  This clarifies that it must be Core curriculum credits not just electives. It also clarifies that students do not need to reapply to the major status.  That is reviewed by Dana Thomas's office every semester and student who meet the criteria are moved to major status.  The motion passed unanimously.  

MOTION:  
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to revise the requirements for how pre-majors move to major status (UAF 2006-2007 catalog, page 26 and 67) as follows:

PRE-MAJOR

If you do not meet the minimum requirements for admission to a baccalaureate degree program, you may be admitted to pre-major status within the department of your choice.  

[[You may later apply for a baccalaureate degree program and will be admitted if you]]  STUDENTS WHO are in good standing and have completed 14 credits at the 100-level or above with a C grade average (2.0) or higher, of which 9 credits must satisfy [[general]] baccalaureate [[degree]] CORE requirements SHALL BE MOVED TO MAJOR STATUS.

EFFECTIVE:  	Fall 2007

RATIONALE:   	This is proposal is being submitted upon recommendation of the Dean’s Council.  The phrase general baccalaureate degree is not well defined.  For example, a student could take 14 credits of electives such as ABUS courses that may not count toward any specific baccalaureate program.  We would like to see progress toward baccalaureate completion for pre-majors to move to major status.

Pre-majors are typically of two types; first year students who are under prepared with respect to their high school core courses and/or gpa AND transfer students whose gpa is low.   Transfer students who transfer 14 credits (C or better) with 9 credits in courses counting toward the Core would simply have to achieve good standing (C gpa) to be moved to major status.

NOTE:  We no longer make pre-majors reapply for their specific four-year degree program.  The Assistant Provost reviews pre-majors at the end of each semester and moves those who qualify for major status by sending a list to the registrar.  A letter of congratulations is sent to these students.

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

C.	Motion to approve a policy on Retention of Course Records, submitted by Curricular Affairs

Marsha indicated this motion was discussed at the last Senate meeting but was sent back until information on what can be retained on Blackboard could be determined.  This motion includes retention of all Blackboard material for a year and a half.  This will allow time for any student who receives an incomplete to finish the course and also cover the appeals time period.  The motion passed unanimously.

MOTION:
=======

Retention of Course Records

The classroom records pertaining to course work of any student that have not been returned to the student must be retained by the instructor for a period of one full semester (excluding summer session) after the semester in which the course was completed.  These records may include but are not limited to: exams and answer sheets, homework, course papers, term papers, essays, laboratory reports, and other assignments submitted by the student in order to fulfill the requirement of the particular course.  The Office of Information Technology must archive all Blackboard course content, including statistics, for a period of 1 ½ years following completion of the course.

Classroom records of any instructor for the purpose of evaluation of grade must also be retained for a period of at least one full semester (excluding summer session) following the semester in which the course was competed.  These records may include but are not limited to: syllabus, class attendance, complete list of student’s performance in all relevant course work, paper work related to the determination of a grade, and a record of final grades. 

In case of any dispute or grievance process initiated by the student all the above records must be retained until the end of the process.  Any records or copies of records that are required for program review, accreditation purposes, or any other audit as mandated by the university may be retained for a period as deemed required by the process.

After the retention period, all records may be destroyed or properly discarded.

EFFECTIVE:  	Fall 2007

RATIONALE:  	The University does not have any policies or regulations regarding the retention of course materials, which has led to confusion among the faculty and has resulted in different retention practices and polices across the disciplines.  This proposed motion will help alleviate the confusion and provide a uniform retention policy across all disciplines.  The one-semester guideline is what was suggested by UA General Counsel as a reasonable policy to accommodate grade appeals. This policy should be added to the faculty handbook.

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

D.	OSYA Confirmation

Shirish indicated that The Outstanding Senator of the Year Award Screening Committee reviewed the 2007 nominations according to the award criteria and forwarded the nominations of Marsha Sousa and Larry Roberts for consideration by the Faculty Senate.  A simple majority is necessary to confirm and you may vote to confirm more than one.   Jane Weber called for a confirmation of both candidates to share the award.  It was unanimously agreed upon.  Formal resolutions will be presented at the May meeting. 

MOTION:
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to confirm Marsha Sousa and Larry Roberts as the 2007 Outstanding Senators of the Year.  

	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately

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

E.	President-elect election.

Shirish invited Jonathan Dehn and Marsha Sousa to speak to the Senate membership.  Ballots were distributed and tallied.  Results of the election were announced to the Senate.  Marsha Sousa was elected as President-Elect.  

RESOLUTION:
===========

BE IT RESOLVED, That the UAF Faculty Senate ratifies the election of President-Elect on the basis of the following ballot.

BALLOT
PRESIDENT-ELECT

Please vote for ONE individual to serve as the President-Elect of the UAF Faculty Senate for 2007-2008.

	___	Jonathan Dehn

	_X__	Marsha Sousa 

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

IX	Guest Speakers 	

	A.	Buck Sharpton, Vice Chancellor for Research  

Buck Sharpton has been in his position for two years and sees his role as facilitating research across the campus.  We tend to focus on organized research on West Ridge, but it also includes research that everyone is involved in.  If there are issues, problems or concerns he is the person to contact if it is related to research (e.g., pre-awards activities, Office of Sponsored Programs, research integrity, technology transfer, etc.).  As a member of the Chancellor's Cabinet it provides an enhanced voice for research across the campus. 

Issues that have come up are undergraduate research.  We need to take advantage of our research to make sure it is an experiential learning opportunity for undergraduates.  We are deeply involved in the International Polar Year (IPY).  We have a committee composed of four subcommittees.  Phyllis is chair of the public awareness subcommittee.  There is a community engagement subcommittee, a research subcommittee, and an educational outreach subcommittee.  Our researchers are doing extremely well for IPY.  They have received $8.5 million in new awards directly related to IPY.  

Although there is some reason to be a little concerned about future funding, Buck feels that research is going to do quite well, as long as we are cautious about how we use our research investment and make sure it is focused and we are sustaining those activities we have become reliant upon for international reputation, relevance to the state of Alaska, and research revenues.  We need to expand ourselves into new areas such as economic development.  We are working with the Fairbanks Economic Development Corporation to help create an Alaskan technology business accelerator environment.  We need to market our research products.  Buck will be reserving some funds to help researchers, students, staff, and take these basic research and applied research activities and get them in shape for the accelerator.  

The provisional benefit rates are one of our biggest challenges for research proposals.  However, they do have some language vetted through General Council that can be added to proposals.  It will give funding agencies and reviewers a clear sense that the provisional rates are not likely to occur.  The legislature is on the verge of solving our benefits problems.  TERS will probably drop from the provisional rates of in the 40% range to about 12.5% and ORP will drop down to about 19%.  

The graduate tuition waiver -- he hopes to find some way to resolve it.  They will entertain any ideas.  One idea is for the advanced classes in thesis and research to maybe have some reduction in tuition.   

Ataur asked about the future of the OEM.   What will be the involvement of faculty?  Buck stated that we are a university and it should be involved in university activities--both research and instruction.  And there should be interaction with other units.  He is a strong advocate of collaborative, interdepartmental kinds of efforts.  If OEM can design a business model that is sustainable beyond the next year when it's federal funding will dry up, then we can begin to integrate them into the university.   It has added to its problems by moving across town.  There needs to be some incentive for other people to get involved.    

Shirish spoke about the double mission to build and sustain graduate programs and keep up with teaching/research.  Buck indicated that if we are going to see a growth in enrollments, it will probably come from graduate students.  Focusing on qualify education at the undergraduate level will probably reduce undergraduate enrollment for a short term, until we can build up a reputation of uncompromised quality.  We can use our graduate student growth by enhancing our research enterprise as the way to satisfy the PBB metric.  

Donie Bret-Harte stated that the graduate school she went to had a tuition reduction provision for students who had passed their candidacy.  It is a model that has worked at other institutions and could probably do it here.   

	B.	Joe Jordan - OIT

Joe Jordan spoke about a program called Turnitin.  One of the features is an originality report.  It reports what portion of the paper matches other sources.  Results are based on searches of current and archived internet sites, journals, and a database of previously submitted student papers.  It is in the testing phase.  They are testing a Blackboard integration component.  There are 20-30 faculty currently testing the service.  

Joe was asked to comment on the role of faculty on technology committees.  In a general sense, any technology solutions pursued at UAF must have the input of faculty to make sure we are meeting the teaching objectives.  They are currently looking at implementing e-portfolio's.  These are web-based pages where students, faculty and the administration for curriculum review or accreditation purposes can construct a nonlinear package set of different examples of work over the student's career.  It would be helpful to have a committee to bring issues of concern to him. 

Paul Reichardt asked about the plans for a faculty spotlight.  This is a web page that would allow faculty input about issues of concern.  The Faculty Spotlight meeting is scheduled for May 3, from 10-2.  It will be a dialogue about technology and instruction.  

X	Committee Reports     

	A.	Curricular Affairs - Marsha Sousa 

A report was attached to the agenda.  The committee is still looking at the AY09-10 calendar.  One area of concern was the Tuesday start date in the spring semester and/or the length of the semester.  They would like to hear more about the concerns of faculty.  

	B.	Faculty Affairs - Sukumar Bandopadhyay

No report was available. 

	C.	Unit Criteria - Debasmita Misra 

No report was available. They will meet on Tuesday.  

	D.	Committee on the Status of Women - Jane Weber 

The following report was distributed as a handout.  

Minutes
Committee on the Status of Women
March 27, 2007

Present: David Koester, Kayt Sunwood (ex-officio), Renate Wackerbauer, Sheri Layral (guest), Jane Weber (co-chair), Sine Anahita (co-chair), Wendy Zhou, Alex Fitts

Missing: Pam Deters, Brenda Norcross

Minutes by Sine Anahita

The committee discussed the upcoming T&P workshop—Friday, April 27 1:00-4:00
•	flyer: lime green flyer again; Sine sent the flyer to Sheri for reproduction; no work study students available this year to distribute and post flyers; Kayt can “loan” her two workers and volunteers, and committee members will post in their areas.
•	announcement: Sheri will send out on email announcement to faculty today and three days before, put copies in college boxes, and send to committee members for distribution and posting
•	confirmed panelists: Prof. Roxie Rodgers Dinstel, CES; Assoc Prof Alex Fitts, CLA; Assoc Prof David Koester, CLA; Asst Prof Cindy Hardy, CRCD
•	David Koester agreed to be the moderator
•	Ensuring rural access: Call-in number for audio for rural and distance participants; discussion about using E-Live as well; audio and E-Live b/c would be archived in E-Live, which would be a benefit for those who are unable to attend the workshop. Get the moderator to repeat Qs when asked to ensure that they are recorded. Questions about what equipment needed? Kayt: just her computer, everything else will already be set up. Kayt will send the link to Sheri to send out to faculty in the email. It will cost us nothing for the hookup because the Women’s Center has an E-Live site. Kayt will do the setup of E-Live, Sheri will organize audio, David will moderate the discussion. The archived workshop can go on Provost’s website, maybe Faculty Development, other sites. Projector already in the room. Attach flyer to email announcement
•	Moderator: David will sum up the T&P process, then panelists talk about different aspects of the process, and then Qs from participants
•	Food—cookies, fruit, water, brownies; bring them in at 2, break midway 2:30
•	Target number: last year 35 planned for 45; will plan for 40-45 minutes
•	Need to ask attendees why they are there—e.g. promotion to full, 4th year review, brand new, about to go up for T&P?

Women Faculty Luncheon—Sept 18
•	SA & JW will send letter to Jake Poole requesting funds
•	Sheri will reserve room, probably already has reserved, but will reconfirm
•	Mass email to women faculty to reserve the date before we go off contract
•	Target about 100 women
•	Keynote speaker? Provost-elect Susan Henrichs was mentioned and this was discussed. Consensus that she would be a good choice. Jane will invite.
•	Who to invite? All women faculty plus members of this committee, Jake Poole, Chancellor Jones, Judy Jones, Earlina Bowden, women deans, Aldona Jonaitis, women directors.
•	Seating: seemed to work well to have the administrators up front and centralized, with deans scattered around at individual tables.
•	Sheri will get on the master calendar—looks like it is already there.
•	Change invitation to 3rd annual to highlight the fact that the women faculty luncheon organized by the Faculty Senate CSW is now an annual institution

Next meeting: May 8, 1:30-3:00

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

	E.	Core Review - Michael Harris 

No report was available. 

	F.	Curriculum Review - Rainer Newberry

Rainer indicated the committee is working on getting two certificate proposals to the Curricular Affairs Committee and on to the Senate.  

	G.	Developmental Studies - Cindy Hardy 

A report was attached to the agenda. 

	H.	Faculty Appeals & Oversight - Norm Swazo 

No report was available. 

	I.	Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement - Larry Roberts 

A report was attached to the agenda.

	J.	Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee - Cathy Cahill 

No report was available. 

XI	Members' Comments/Questions - 

Shirish spoke about the possibility of merging the Faculty Affairs and Faculty Appeals Committees.  This will be a discussion for next year.  

XII	Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 3:20 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.