The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #19 on
May 7, 1990:
MOTION PASSED (unanimous approval)
=============
In the event that $1.9 million becomes available to supplement FY90
compensation, the ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate moves to recommend that the
faculty portion of these funds be distributed on an equal dollar basis
to all permanent faculty and that the increases be built into the base
salary.
EFFECTIVE: Immediately
RATIONALE: If compensation funds become available late
in the legislative session, this will give administration
a clear signal as to the faculty wishes for distribution.
Signed: John S. Leipzig, President, ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate Date: 5/11/90
-------------------------------------------------------------
The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #19 on
May 7, 1990:
MOTION PASSED AS AMENDED (unanimous approval)
=========================
The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate moves to receive the University of ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ
Fairbanks Self-Study - 1989-90 and to authorize the Administrative
Committee to add additional comments based upon the recently
received faculty opinion surveys.
EFFECTIVE: Immediately
RATIONALE: This action is necessary for the accreditation
process.
Signed: John Leipzig, President, ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate Date: 5/11/90
-------------------------------------------------------------
The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #19 on
May 7, 1990:
MOTION PASSED (unanimous approval)
=============
The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate moves to charge the Administrative
Committee to create a survey for faculty distribution based on
results of the self-study questionnaires. The survey will be
distributed in Fall 1990.
EFFECTIVE: Immediately
RATIONALE: It would be helpful if more significant data was
available on the issues addressed in the faculty self-
study questionnaire. The return from the original survey
was statistically small and was perhaps affected by it
being done as part of the self study.
Signed: John Leipzig, President, ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate Date: 5/11/90
-------------------------------------------------------------
The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #19 on
May 7, 1990:
MOTION PASSED (unanimous approval)
=============
The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate moves to endorse the 1990-91 committee
membership as indicated below:
STANDING COMMITTEES
===================
Curricular Affairs
Roy Bird, CLA (91)
Claudette Bradley, CRA (91)
Lawrence Duffy, CNS (92)
Fred Dyen, SCCE (92)
Mike Gaffney, CLA (91)
Ron Gatterdam, CLA (92)
DeAnne Hallsten, SCCE (91)
John Lehman, SOM (91)
Nag Rao, CRA (91)
Douglas Schamel, CNS (91)
David Spell, SOE (91)
Julia Triplehorn, CLA (91)
Ex-Officio: 1 Dean - TBD
Representative from Registrar's Office
1 Undergraduate student - TBD
Faculty Affairs
Sukumar Bandopadhyay, SME (92)
Gary Copus, CLA (92)
John French, SFOS (91)
Fred Husby, SALRM (91)
Mary Lindahl, SOM (92)
Nag Rao, CRA (91)
Julie Riley, CES (92)
Ruiz Anne Rozell, SCCE (92)
David Spell, SOE (91)
Bob White, CNS (91)
Scholarly Activities
no members
PERMANENT COMMITTEES
====================
Committee to Nominate Commencement Speaker and Honorary Degree
Recipients
Jill Baker, CRA (91)
Cathy Goodwin, SOM (92)
David Hales, CLA (92)
Koji Kawasaki, CNS (91)
James Ruppert, CLA (92)
Ex-Officio: Karen Cedzo, Director
University Relations
Developmental Studies Committee
Roy Bird, English, CLA (91)
Claudette Bradley, Interior Campus, (91)
Richard Clausen, Math, CLA (92)
John Creed, Chukchi (91)
Kathy Harrell, CCC, CLA (91)
Ron Illingworth, SCCE (91)
Clara Johnson, RSS, (91)
Wanda Martin , Advising Center (91)
Joli Morgan, General & Devel. Studies (91)
Maynard Perkins, Northwest (92)
Marcele Skelton, SCCE (91)
Peggy Wood, Bristol Bay (91)
VACANT: CNS representative
VACANT: Kuskokwim Representative
Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement Committee
Taylor Brelsford, CRA (91)
Ed Cridge, CLA (92)
Joseph Dupras, CLA (92)
John Gimbel, CLA (92)
Lucy Jones-Sparck, CRA (91)
Bob Piacenza, CLA (91)
Channon Price, CNS (91)
Henry Wichmann, SOM (92)
Ex-Officio: Gerald McBeath, Interim Director
Office of Faculty Development
Graduate Council (five senators)
Robert T. Cooney, SFOS (92)
Jack Distad, CLA (91)
Gerry Shields, CNS (91)
Peggy Shumaker, CLA (91)
Tim Tilsworth, SOE (92)
Legislative Affairs
Larry Duffy, CNS (92)
DeAnne Hallsten, SCCE (91)
Paul Metz, SME (91)
Marnie Sweet, CRA (92)
Don Triplehorn, CNS (92)
Service Committee
Doug Coghenower, SFOS (92)
Roland Gangloff, CNS (91)
Ken Krieg, SALRM (91)
Don Quarberg, CES (92)
Ruiz Anne Rozell, SCCE (92)
Non-University: Linda Green, FNSB (91)
Non-University: To be determined
NOTE: 2 CRA SENATORS WILL BE PLACED ON COMMITTEES AT A
LATER DATE
EFFECTIVE: Immediately
RATIONALE: The faculty members' preferences were
reviewed and weighted against membership
distribution from schools and colleges. In all
cases, the senators' first or second choice of
committee was honored.
Signed: John Leipzig, President, ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate Date: 5/11/90
-------------------------------------------------------------
The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #19 on
May 7, 1990:
MOTION PASSED
=============
The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate moves to adopt the following calendar of
meetings for the 1990-91 academic year
*Mtg. #20 Monday, September 17, 1990
Mtg. #21 Monday, October 15, 1990
*Mtg. #22 Monday, November 12, 1990
Mtg. #23 Monday, December 17, 1990
*Mtg. #24 Monday, February 11, 1991
Mtg. #25 Monday, March 11, 1991
*Mtg. #26 Monday, April 15, 1991
Mtg. #27 May, 1991 - TBD
*indicates audioconferenced meeting
EFFECTIVE: Immediately
Signed: John Leipzig, President, ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate Date: 5/11/90
-------------------------------------------------------------
The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #19 on
May 7, 1990:
MOTION PASSED (unanimous approval)
=============
The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate moves to require new course proposals to
contain a copy of the course syllabus.
EFFECTIVE: Fall 1990
RATIONALE: As a new course proposal makes its way
through the approval process, it is essential to have
information available to faculty outside the originating
discipline. Several colleges already require course
syllabi to be submitted with new course proposals. This
motion strengthens and standardizes current procedure
Signed: John Leipzig, President, ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate Date: 5/11/90
Approved: Patrick J. O'Rourke, Chancellor Date: 5/15/90
-------------------------------------------------------------
The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #19 on
May 7, 1990:
MOTION PASSED AS AMENDED (unanimous approval)
========================
The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate moves to endorse the following
recommendations of the ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Assembly Computer Users Committee
included in its report dated April 16, 1990.
Recommendations
================
A director of academic computing should be appointed as soon as
possible. Given that funding for such a position was available last
year when Tom Hassler held the position, the appointment of this
director should not be contingent on increased state funding for the
proposed academic computing increment. The new director of
academic computing should act as expeditiously as possible to carry
out the following tasks:
- Coordinate with UAA to allow ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ users to make use of ACAD2
in Anchorage, which is operating at less than 20% of capacity.
- Institute procedures to route all CPU-intensive batch jobs to
ACAD2 in order to relieve the load on ACAD3.
- Communicate with research faculty regarding the availability
of supercomputer grants. The committee feels that it would
be appropriate to ban all jobs requiring more than a certain
amount of CPU time from the VAX given the availability of
such supercomputer grants.
- Communicate with all faculty regarding the availability of
off-campus computer resources via the Internet.
- Coordinate with UACN to arrange automatic distribution of
computer mail among various campus hosts using the
University's new class-B Internet license in order to decrease
the load on the VAX from electronic mail.
- Update the census of public computing facilities and prepare a
budget for repair and replacement. Our informal estimate is
that necessary repairs and replacements would cost around
$50,000 at this time.
- Prepare a census of rural campus computing facilities and
curriculum-related computer and telecommunication needs and
prepare a budget for repair, expansion, and replacement.
Because of the perception among faculty that funds for academic
computing have historically been (and continue to be) diverted to
administrative use, we strongly recommend that the new director of
academic computing should report directly to the Vice Chancellor of
Academic Affairs rather than to the Director of Planning and
Information Systems. This recommendation is not intended as
criticism of existing individuals, but rather as a way to deal with
widespread faculty perceptions by removing any appearance of
conflict of interest.
EFFECTIVE: Immediately
RATIONALE: The Academic Computer Users Committee has
spent the past three months studying the current state of
campus-wide academic computing at ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ, during which
we have received input from students, faculty, ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ staff,
and statewide staff. This document summarizes our
findings, concerns, and recommendations.
This motion deals only with issues regarding campus-
wide academic computing.
Findings
========
ACAD3 has been at near 100% of both processor and port
capacity since January. Many users are unable even to
sign on, since the maximum number of allowed users is
often exceeded. For those who are able to sign on,
response time is often very slow.
Between 30% and 40% of processor use of the VAX is by
numerically-intensive jobs submitted by faculty and
graduate students. It appears that much of this is from
users in research institutes who use free time on ACAD3
instead of paid time on institute machines, or
supercomputer access which requires advance
permission.
A significant portion of VAX port use is by statewide
administrative users (SX accounts) who remain logged on
all day to use the electronic mail system (all users other
than statewide administrative users are automatically
logged off after a reasonable period of inactivity). This
contributes substantially to the problem with exceeding
the maximum number of allowed users .
Public-access student labs suffer from old, poorly-
maintained equipment.
There is a perception among faculty that funds for
academic computing have historically been diverted to
administrative use. Both ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ and Statewide personnel
have confirmed that this was standard operating practice
during the period when Statewide was responsible for all
computer administration. There is a strong suspicion
among faculty in many units that this practice has
continued since academic computing was turned over to
the units (with a tiny fraction of its original nominal
budget).
Signed: John Leipzig, President, ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate Date: 5/11/90
-------------------------------------------------------------
The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #19 on
May 7, 1990:
MOTION PASSED (unanimous approval)
=============
The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate moves to empower the Administrative
Committee to act on behalf of the Senate during the summer months
of 1990 on all matters within its purview which may arise.
Members will be kept informed of the Administrative Committee's
actions.
EFFECTIVE: May 7, 1990
RATIONALE: This motion will allow the Administrative
Committee to act on behalf of the Senate so that
necessary work can be accomplished.
Signed: John Leipzig, President, ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate Date: 5/11/90
-------------------------------------------------------------
The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #19 on
May 7, 1990:
MOTION PASSED (with 19 ayes, 10 nays)
=============
The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate moves to commit to the Faculty Affairs
Committee the motion to recommend that issues of equity for
faculty be a major priority if funds become available to supplement
FY91 compensation.
Signed: John Leipzig, President, ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate Date: 5/11/90
-------------------------------------------------------------
The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #19 on
May 7, 1990:
MOTION PASSED AS AMENDED (21 ayes, 8 nays)
=========================
The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate moves that deans, research directors, rural
campus directors, library director, museum director and CES
director will have five year term appointments, renewable for one
additional five-year term upon completion of a successful faculty
and administrative review.
EFFECTIVE: Upon Chancellor's Approval
RATIONALE: Since the early formation of the senate and the
leadership retreat last year, the issue of term
appointments for administrators has been an issue of
much discussion and concern. This statement indicates
the definitive senate position on this issue.
Signed: John Leipzig, President, ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate Date: 5/11/90
Disapproved: Patrick J. O'Rourke, Chancellor Date: 6/1/90
*See memorandum for explanation.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #19 on
May 7, 1990:
MOTION PASSED AS AMENDED (unanimous approval)
=========================
The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate moves to establish the following transition
guidelines for implementation of the term appointment policy for
deans and directors:
1. Deans and directors who have served in their position for
four years will be reviewed during the first year that the
administrator evaluation policy and procedures become
effective;
2. Dean and directors who have served in their position less
than four years will be reviewed after completion of their
fourth year of service.
EFFECTIVE: Upon Chancellor's Approval
RATIONALE: A transition policy is needed to provide for an
orderly review of current deans and directors.
Signed: John Leipzig, President, ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate Date: 5/11/90
Disapproved: Patrick J. O'Rourke, Chancellor Date: 6/1/90
*Follows as a result of previous action.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #19 on
May 7, 1990:
MOTION PASSED AS AMENDED (unanimous approval)
========================
The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate moves to establish the following policy on
evaluation of administrators:
POLICY
FACULTY ROLE IN ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION
Coverage: The evaluation system would involve the evaluation of
"Academic Administrators" which would include Academic Deans,
Directors of Institutes, Director of Libraries, Rural Campus
Directors, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, and the Vice
Chancellor for Research and Dean of the Graduate School and the
Chancellor. Academic Administrators are defined as those
administrators holding academic rank whose positions directly
impact the academic program and whose performance directly
effects the ability of faculty to carry out their academic duties.
Purpose: The purpose of the evaluation is for the faculty to provide
appraisal of administrator's performance. The year in which the
faculty evaluate administrators, the faculty evaluation will be a
part of a regularly scheduled evaluation process carried out by the
appropriate Vice Chancellor for those who report to the Vice
Chancellor or by the Chancellor for the evaluation of the Vice
Chancellors.
Frequency: The faculty contribution to the evaluation process will
occur every four years, with each administrator conducting an
interim evaluation for their own benefit every two years. It is
expected that while administrators will continue to be evaluated on
an annual basis by the appropriate individual, the fourth year
evaluation will be more extensive and structured and will involve
substantial input from all faculty in the appropriate college,
institute or unit.
Composition of the Evaluating Committee:
The faculty of each unit shall elect five to seven members of the
senior faculty (tenured) of that unit to comprise a committee which
will gather, evaluate, analyze the faculty opinion of the performance
of the administrator heading that unit. The committee will prepare
a detailed report on the administrators performance as seen from a
faculty perspective which will be submitted both to the appropriate
Vice Chancellor, or in the case of Vice Chancellor's, to the
Chancellor and to the administrator being evaluated.
The faculty committee will use a uniform survey instrument in
soliciting faculty opinion so as to provide fair and comparable data.
This instrument will address both administrative and academic
contributions. The review process is expected to occur in the spring
semester of the fourth year projected to take no longer than three
weeks from the time questionnaires are sent to the faculty, to the
time a formal performance report is submitted to both the
administrator involved and the representative of the administration.
The report submitted shall be treated, in terms of confidentiality,
the same as performance evaluations of senior faculty.
Election of the Evaluating Committee:
The Senate shall conduct the election of members of the Evaluating
Committee for each academic unit.
Responsibility and prerogatives of the administrator being reviewed:
The administrator being reviewed shall be provided with a copy of
the survey instruments to prepare a evaluation addressing
significant performance areas for the period under review (4 prior
years).
This evaluation shall be distributed to all faculty along with the
survey instrument.
The administrator being reviewed will have the opportunity to
respond to and address any points developed in the evaluation and
submit comments. The report and the comments submitted by the
administrator being reviewed shall be considered together by the
administrator to whom the administrator being reviewed reports.
Role of the Chancellor or Vice Chancellor:
The Chancellor or appropriate Vice Chancellor may, at his or her
discretion, discuss material parts of the report or response with
either the committee of senior faculty or the administrator involved
prior to finalizing the evaluation of performance of the
administrator being reviewed.
The cognizant administrator will review the evaluation with the
Committee.
Evaluation of the Process:
Annually, the Senate or appropriate committee shall review the
effectiveness of the process and any instrument used with the
representatives of the review committees from the various
academic units. This review process will focus on improving the
effectiveness of the process and will not involve the disclosure of
elements of the evaluation report.
FACULTY EVALUATION OF DEAN OR DIRECTOR
UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS
Evaluation of: ____________________ For Calendar
Year:_____________
Dean/Director Unit: _______________ Evaluator's Total Length of
Appointment: F.T. _______ P.T. ____ Service at ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ _____
(Years)
Regular: Tenure Track _____________ Non Tenure
Track______________
J.T. Appointment? Yes ____ No______ Y/N ___ If Yes With:
__________
Rank:______________________________ Tenured
Y/N______________
In response to each of the statements below, please circle the
response which best represents your opinion about the performance
of the dean/director being evaluated. Additional comments may be
added on Page 4.
Response Key: 1 = Poor 5 = Outstanding NR = No Response
__________________________________________________
I. ADMINISTRATIVE TASKS:
A. Building and Maintaining Excellence:
1. Encourages and facilitates the professional
growth and scholarship of faculty----- 1 2 3 4 5 NR
2. Handles personnel matters such as
promotion and tenure fairly---------- 1 2 3 4 5 NR
3. Establishes educationally significant
goals for school/unit---------------- 1 2 3 4 5 NR
4. Involves faculty participation in
planning and program development----- 1 2 3 4 5 NR
PLEASE RANK IMPORTANCE OF THIS SECTION: LOW, MODERATE, HIGH
B. Resource Allocation:
1. Effectively communicates needs and
priorities of the unit to a variety of
constituents------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 NR
2. Demonstrates sound judgement and
high academic standards in matters of
faculty hiring----------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 NR
3. Uses good judgement in
controlling expenditures------------- 1 2 3 4 5 NR
4. Involves department heads in setting
priorities for budget
preparation and allocation----------- 1 2 3 4 5 NR
5. Provides adequate support services
and staff for teaching and research-- 1 2 3 4 5 NR
PLEASE RANK IMPORTANCE OF THIS SECTION: LOW, MODERATE, HIGH
II. LEADERSHIP CATEGORIES:
A. Maintenance of Strong Faculty Morale:
1. Recognizes and acknowledges staff and
faculty accomplishments----------- 1 2 3 4 5 NR
2. Inspires excellence in faculty
and staff-------------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 NR
3. Projects/Builds morale of school--- 1 2 3 4 5 NR
4. Effectively manages conflicts------ 1 2 3 4 5 NR
5. Encourages divergent viewpoints---- 1 2 3 4 5 NR
6. Evaluates faculty fairly and
constructively using high academic
standards-------------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 NR
PLEASE RANK IMPORTANCE OF THIS SECTION: LOW, MODERATE, HIGH
B. Mediator between Faculty and Administration:
1. Communicates and consults with
faculty on policy issues----------- 1 2 3 4 5 NR
2. Provides appropriate guidance to
faculty regarding promotion/tenure- 1 2 3 4 5 NR
3. Serves as an effective liaison
between faculty and administration- 1 2 3 4 5 NR
4. Openly communicates schools need to
upper administration--------------- 1 2 3 4 5 NR
5. Responds appropriately to student's
concerns--------------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 NR
PLEASE RANK IMPORTANCE OF THIS SECTION: LOW, MODERATE, HIGH
C. General Leadership Abilities:
1. Projects vision that is
appropriate and understandable----- 1 2 3 4 5 NR
2. Generates outside support for
faculty research, teaching and
service activities----------------- 1 2 3 4 5 NR
3. Creates opportunities for faculty
to share expertise on public and
private forums--------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 NR
4. Exercises good judgement----------- 1 2 3 4 5 NR
5. Discharges responsibility in
a timely manner-------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 NR
PLEASE RANK IMPORTANCE OF THIS SECTION: LOW, MODERATE, HIGH
III. ACADEMIC CONTRIBUTIONS:
1. Maintains professional expertise
and activity in academic field
appropriate to school-------------- 1 2 3 4 5 NR
2. Represents the unit effectively
to external constituencies--------- 1 2 3 4 5 NR
3. Contributes at appropriate
national/regional professional
associations through presentations
of papers, chairing committees,
etc.------------------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 NR
4. Contributes to teaching program
functions through classroom
teaching, seminars, workshops,
graduate student supervision.------ 1 2 3 4 5 NR
5. Publishes in appropriate academic
field------------------------------ 1 2 3 4 5 NR
6. Participates/contributes to faculty
seminars, research, etc.----------- 1 2 3 4 5 NR
PLEASE RANK IMPORTANCE OF THIS SECTION: LOW, MODERATE, HIGH
COMMENTS
I. ADMINISTRATIVE TASKS:
A. Building and Maintaining Excellence:
B. Resource Allocation:
II. LEADERSHIP CATEGORIES:
A. Maintenance of Strong Faculty Morale:
B. Mediator between Faculty and Administration:
C. General Leadership Abilities:
III. ACADEMIC CONTRIBUTIONS:
IV. GENERAL COMMENTS:
Signed: John Leipzig, President, ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate Date: 5/11/90
Disapproved: Patrick J. O'Rourke, Chancellor Date: 6/1/90
*See memorandum for explanation
UA