ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ

The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #77 on
February 9, 1998:

MOTION
=======

The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate moves to approve the Certificate program in
Microcomputer Support Specialist.

EFFECTIVE: Upon Board of Regents' Approval

RATIONALE: See full program proposal #28 on file in the
Governance Office, 312 Signersï¿½ Hall.

Signed: John D. Craven, President, ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate Date: 2/11/98

Approved: Joan Wadlow, Chancellor Date: 3/2/98

Executive Summary
Certificate, Microcomputer Support Specialist
33 credits

As computers become indispensable in our daily lives, agencies and
businesses are discovering that providing ongoing support for
computer users is an absolute necessity. The critical need for well-
trained professionals with the requisite technical computer
knowledge and people support skills is becoming every more
apparent. Thus, the objective of this Certificate program is to
provide the essential elements of both technical knowledge and
interpersonal skills for a new cadre of microcomputer support
specialists who can fill permanent staff positions, like the new
State of ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Microcomputer/Network Technician I and II, or
develop private microcomputer support enterprises throughout
ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ.

As one of the programs approved last year for funding through the
President's Reallocation Fund, this program meets the criteria for
being collaborative statewide, focused on vocational/technical
training, and utilizing alternative modes of delivery. The group of
faculty and staff who compose the committee making this project
proposal come from all three MAUs. Microcomputer support
represents an area of vocational/technical expertise that is
increasingly desired and needed within the state but which is not
currently satisfied by any University of ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ program. And, there
is a direct relationship between the requirements of the courses and
the expected skills and knowledge the student will need on the job;
the program will be competency based, individualized, and available
at a distance through a variety of delivery modes.

The program staff developed a questionnaire regarding
microcomputer classes that was sent to 1247 people in state
government, educational institutions, libraries, military bases,
private corporations and businesses including Native corporations:
257 responses were received for a response rate of 21%. ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ 78%
of the respondents indicated there was a need for a program leading
to a certificate as a microcomputer support specialist, and 84% said
it would be helpful to have a person trained in this area working for
their organization; 58% said, if they were in a position to hire staff,
they would seek to hire someone with such a certificate. Finally
56% said they themselves would be interested in obtaining a
microcomputer specialist certificate.

A great number of students have already inquired about this
program, having heard by word of mouth, apparently, of its imminent
availability. Extended campus directors, faculty in this area, and
others have told us that many potential students are waiting to
enroll. Therefore, it is anticipated that a sufficient number of
students will enroll in the program. In fact, the opposite problem of
having too many students too quickly may materialize.

Students will be required, at minimum, to complete a 9 credit core
to earn the Certificate. If they have prior experience and/or can
demonstrate their competencies in the required subject area, all the
remaining credits may be waived; however, many will need to take
all 33 credits of course work. Courses are being redesigned for
distance delivery during the Fall 1997 and Spring 1998 semesters;
and equivalencies across all three MAUs have been determined. The
Certificate will not be available for matriculation until all
approvals have been achieved hopefully by the Fall 1998 semester.

***

The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #77 on
February 9, 1998:

MOTION
=======

The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate moves to approve the A.A.S. in
Microcomputer Support Specialist.

EFFECTIVE: Upon Board of Regents' Approval

RATIONALE: See full program proposal #29 on file in the
Governance Office, 312 Signersï¿½ Hall.

Signed: John D. Craven, President, ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate Date: 2/11/98

Approved: Joan Wadlow, Chancellor Date: 3/2/98

Executive Summary
A.A.S., Microcomputer Support Specialist
60 credits

As computers become indispensable in our daily lives, agencies and
businesses are discovering that providing ongoing support for
computer users is an absolute necessity. The critical need for well-
trained professionals with the requisite technical computer
knowledge and people support skills is becoming every more
apparent. Thus, the objective of this A.A.S. program is to build on
the Certificate for Microcomputer Support Specialist and provide
additional skill development in the major area as well as associate
level general education requirements. Completion of this A.A.S.
degree is not a preparation for a computer science baccalaureate
degree.

The A.A.S. will require general education and computer courses
beyond the Certificate to total 60 credits. Courses are currently
being redesigned for distance delivery during the Fall 1997 and
Spring 1998 semesters; and equivalencies across all three MAUs
have been determined. The A.A.S. degree will not be available for
matriculation until all approvals have been achieved hopefully by the
Fall 1998 semester.

***

The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #77 on
February 9, 1998:

MOTION
=======

The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate moves to approve the Ph.D. program in Marine
Biology.

EFFECTIVE: Upon Board of Regentsï¿½ Approval

RATIONALE: See full program proposal #44 on file in the
Governance Office, 312 Signersï¿½ Hall.

Signed: John D. Craven, President, ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate Date: 2/11/98

Approved: Joan Wadlow, Chancellor Date: 3/3/98

Executive Summary
Ph.D. Degree Program in Marine Biology

We propose a Ph.D. degree program in Marine Biology, to be housed
within the Graduate Program in Marine Sciences and Limnology
(GPMSL) and the School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences (SFOS). Our
goals are to attract students with excellent qualifications; offer
them unique opportunities to conduct research in the Arctic, Bering
Sea, and Gulf of ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ regions; help them to develop expertise in
research through courses and mentorship; facilitate their authorship
of important contributions to Marine Biology, increase SFOS
capability to address significant problems of ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ's marine life;
and educate professionals who are especially well-qualified to
address these problems. The Strategic Plan: ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ 2000 states that
the university should "become the world's leader in arctic research
and graduate education." Assuming that this will remain an
important ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ goal into the next century, a new Marine Biology Ph.D.
program will contribute by attracting outstanding students, who
will conduct high-quality research in the Arctic and elsewhere.

The doctoral degree program will educate students using both course
work and a research-based thesis. The program is flexibly designed
and modeled after the successful GPMSL doctoral program in
Oceanography. Like all biological fields, Marine Biology requires
collaborative research in many different areas in order to
understand the demands placed upon the organism and how it has
adapted to the environment. It can include studies in modern
methods of molecular biology as well as classical methods of
physiology or genetics. Courses offered by the other ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ graduate
programs, in addition to a wide range of courses within SFOS, will
enable Marine Biology Ph.D. students to attain both breadth and depth
of knowledge. The opportunities for collaboration with researchers
in Oceanography and Fisheries within SFOS, and with faculty from
the Biology and Wildlife Department, the Department of Chemistry
and Biochemistry, and other ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ departments and institutes will be
especially valuable to Marine Biology students.

The strong, extramurally-funded Marine Biology research programs
of GPMSL faculty are crucial to the success of the Marine Biology
Ph.D. program. SFOS has several outstanding research facilities for
marine biological research which provide opportunities to conduct
research at a wide range of sites along ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ's coastline. These
include the Seward Marine Center; the Kasitsna Bay Laboratory,
located near Seldovia; the Juneau Center for Fisheries and Ocean
Sciences; and the Fisheries Industrial Technology Center in Kodiak.
Marine Biology Ph.D. students will also have the opportunity to use
the Seward SeaLife Center, which is being built by a private
foundation and will open in the Spring of 1998. The SeaLife center
will have state-of-the-art research facilities for captive studies of
marine mammals and sea birds and will also support field research
in the nearby fjords.

Five students transferred to the Interdisciplinary Studies Ph.D.
program in 1995 to pursue studies in Marine Biology, with major
advisors and a "home base" in GPMSL. Four of these students have
completed the program and moved on to professional positions; one
is still in progress. Four additional students, now enrolled in either
Oceanography, have expressed interest in transferring to the Marine
Biology Ph.D. program if it becomes available. SFOS and GPMSL have
the faculty, the courses, the facilities, and the experience to offer
an excellent Ph.D. program in Marine Biology without additional cost
to the university.

****

The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #77 on
February 9, 1998:

MOTION
=======

The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate moves to approve the following policy on
Stacked and Cross-listed courses to be included in the ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Catalog
under the Course Numbers section of the Course Descriptions (p. 133
of current ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Catalog) and to amend the 600-699--Graduate
courses paragraph as follows:

"A few well-qualified undergraduates may be admitted to graduate
courses with APPROVAL OF THE INSTRUCTOR. [[the permission of the
head of the department in which the course is offered. Admission to
graduate courses cross-listed with undergraduate courses requires
graduate standing or permission of the instructor.]] A STUDENT MAY
NOT APPLY SUCH A COURSE TO BOTH A BACCALAUREATE AND A
GRADUATE DEGREE."

Stacked and Cross-listed Courses

The same course is sometimes offered by more than one discipline.
Such offerings are referred to as "cross-listed" courses and are
designated in the class listings by "cross-listed with _______".

Courses are also sometimes offered simultaneously at different
levels (100/200 or 400/600, for example) with higher level credit
requiring additional effort and possibly higher order prerequisites
from the student. Such courses are referred to as "Stacked" courses
and are designated in the class listings by "Stacked with _____". In
the case of 400/600 level stacked courses, graduate standing or
permission of the instructor is required for graduate enrollment and
a higher level of effort and performance is required on the part of
students earning graduate credit.

Courses simultaneously stacked and cross-listed will be designated
in the class listing as "stacked with ______ and cross-listed with
________".

In all cases, the course syllabus (not the catalog) must stipulate the
course content and requirements for each level and/or discipline.
The catalog should indicate if there is a difference in content.

Note: this proposal extends, modifies and partially rescinds Senate
policy concerning double listing of 400/600 courses enacted on Feb.
14, 1994 during Meeting # 47.

EFFECTIVE: Immediately

RATIONALE: As more departments add 400/600 courses,
a clearer catalog description of this method of combining
offerings is needed, as is a better way of designating
them than the "same as ____" used in the current ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ
catalog. Similar comments pertain to other stacked
offerings. Students need to understand the nature of
these courses and the difference between levels of
credit deriving from them.

This proposal will eliminate the prohibition against
undergraduates (or anyone else not already enrolled in a
graduate program) taking 400/600 courses for graduate
credit which is embodied in policy enacted by the Senate
in meeting #47. There seems to be little logic in
treating these graduate offerings differently from all
others and it is often desirable to encourage
exceptionally well-qualified undergraduates to expand
their horizons by taking graduate courses.

It should be noted that the additional effort required for
higher level credit must be clearly spelled out in the
course syllabus. This reduces the opportunity for later
conflicts by providing students with a clear
understanding of the differences in requirements and
grading. This will be given serious consideration in the
approval process for such courses.

Signed: John D. Craven, President, ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate Date: 2/11/98

Approved: Joan Wadlow, Chancellor Date: 3/3/98

****

The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #77 on
February 9, 1998:

MOTION PASSED (AS AMENDED)
=======

The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate has reviewed the draft course definitions
submitted by the UA Faculty Alliance and moves to make the
following recommendations:

CAPS = Insertion
[[ ]] = Deletion

DRAFT

A. Course Numbering System

Each course offered by the University is identified by the
department designator and a three-digit course number. The
designator commonly abbreviates the name of a discipline or
department (for example, ENGL for English). In general, the first
numeral of the three-digit course number indicates the course level
and the year in which the course is ordinarily taken. For example,
ENGL 111 is a 100-level course and is ordinarily taken by first-year
(freshman) students, and ENGL 318 is a 300-level course taken by
third-year (junior) students.

B. Course Level Expectations

Students are expected to demonstrate learning skills commensurate
with the appropriate course level, and are expected to meet, prior to
registering, prerequisites for all courses as listed with the course
descriptions. Prerequisites indicate the preparation and/or
background necessary to undertake academic study. If a student has
not taken and passed the necessary prerequisites, but feels
confident of performing the course work, the student may request
permission from the instructor of the course to enroll in the class.
An instructor withdrawal may be initiated for those students who
enroll without either prerequisites oR[[f]] instructor permission.
Courses numbered 001-049 are career development courses intended
to fulfill special needs of students or the community and are not
designed as preparation for 100-level college work. They are
offered for Continuing Education Units (CEU) or for non-credit.
Courses numbered 050-099 usually cover basic or developmental
material and are intended to help prepare students to enter 100-
level college courses. They are applicable to some vocational
certificates. The 100-level courses generally require learning basic
concepts. The 200-, [[level]] 300-, and 400-level courses require
increasing sophistication in the ability to extract, summarize,
evaluate, and apply relevant class material. The 500-level courses
are specifically designed for professional development at the post-
baccalaureate level, while the 600-level courses for advanced
degrees demand rigorous analysis, synthesis, and research skills.

C. Non-degree and Preparatory Courses

001-049: Career development or community interest courses.

Courses are intended to fulfill special needs of students or the
community and are not designed as preparation for 100-level college
work. Career development courses are offered for Continuing
Education Units (CEU). One CEU is granted for satisfactory
completion of 10 contact hours of classroom instruction or for 20
contact hours of laboratory or clinical instruction. Community
interest courses ARE not offered for credit. THEY ARE not applicable
to any degree requirements (even by petition)

050-099. Remedial or Preparatory Courses.

Courses applicable to some vocational certificates but not to any
associate degrees, baccalaureate degrees, master's degrees, or
professional certificates. These are developmental courses that
provide supplemental preparation for introductory college courses.

D. Academic Credit Courses

Lower Division Courses

100-199: Freshman-level courses.

These courses are applicable to ALL certificates, associate, and
baccalaureate degrees. They introduce a field of knowledge and/or
develop basic skills. These are usually foundation or survey courses.

200-299: Sophomore-level courses.

These courses are applicable to ALL certificates, associate, and
baccalaureate degrees. They provide more depth than 100-level
courses and/or build upon 100-level courses. These courses may
connect foundation or survey courses with advanced work in a given
field, require previous college experience, or develop advanced
skills.

Upper Division Courses

As a general guideline upper division courses require at least junior
standing or equivalent experience in addition to any stated
prerequisites. The student is expected to have adequate
preparations and background to complete courses at this level.
[[Freshman and sophomore students are required to obtain special
permission to take any upper division courses.]] Upper-division
courses may not be used as prerequisites for lowER-division
courses.

300-399: Junior-level courses.

These courses are applicable to [[associate and]] baccalaureate
degrees, and may BE APPLICABLE TO SOME ASSOCIATE DEGREES.
THEY MAY also be applied to graduation requirements for some
master's degrees with prior approval of the student's Graduate Study
Committee. They may not be applied to both a baccalaureate and a
master's degree. These courses build upon previous course work and
require familiarity with the concepts, methods and vocabulary of the
discipline.

400-499: Senior-level courses.

These courses are applicable to the baccalaureate degree and may be
applicable to some associates degrees. They may also be applied to
graduation requirements for some master's degrees with prior
approval of the student's Graduate Study Committee. They may not
be applied to both a baccalaureate and a master's degree. These
courses require the ability to analyze, synthesize, compare and
contrast, research, create, innovate, develop, elaborate, transform,
and/or apply course material to solving complex problems. These
courses [[are]] generally [[supported by]] REQUIRE a substantial [[body
of]] BACKGROUND OF STUDY IN lower-level courses.

600-699: Graduate-level courses.

These courses are for post-baccalaureate study towards advanced
degrees with approval of the student's Graduate Study Committee. A
few well qualified undergraduates may be admitted to graduate
courses with APPROVAL OF THE INSTRUCTOR. [[appropriate approval
in the department in which the course is offered. Admission to
graduate courses cross-listed with undergraduate courses requires
graduate standing or permission of the instructor.]] THESE COURSES
MAY BE USED TO MEET GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS FOR
BACCALAUREATE DEGREES UPON APPROVAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IN
WHICH THE COURSE IS OFFERED. A STUDENT MAY NOT APPLY SUCH A
COURSE [[These courses may not be applied]] to both a baccalaureate
and a graduate degree.

D. Professional Development Courses.

500-599: Professional development courses.

These courses are intended as post-baccalaureate education for
various professional groups who desire to continue their education
at a level distinct from graduate-level education. Courses are
neither graduate nor undergraduate in nature. [[They are not
applicable to any grading system.]] These 500-level courses shall
not be stacked with any credit courses numbered 050-499 or 600-
699. NO [[The]] 500-level (special topics and independent study)
courses shall [[not]] apply toward any UNIVERSITY degree,
UNIVERSITY certification or UNIVERSITY credential program, and are
not interchangeable with 600-level courses for graduate degree
programs. Courses may be graded Pass/No Pass or, if the course
includes an evaluation component, by letter grading. The
measurement of student effort is indicated by professional
development credits. One credit requires at least 12.5 classroom
contact hours, two credits at least 25 classroom contact hours,
three credits at least 37.5 classroom contact hours, etc. These
courses will be provided on a self-support basis.

EFFECTIVE: Immediately

RATIONALE: Curricular Affairs and the Graduate &
Professional Curricular Affairs reviewed the entire text
of the motion and made several recommendations, by
section.

Upper division courses--The committee recommended
that the third sentence be deleted. In the opinion of the
committee, this language is unduly restrictive of student
choice, as currently ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ lower-division students do take
upper division courses without "special" permission.

300-399: Junior-level courses.--The committee
recommended that the phrase marked for deletion (also
be applied to graduation requirements for some master's
degrees with prior approval of the student's Graduate
Study Committee) be retained. This should be reinstated
in the text and transformed into a sentence: "They may
also be applied to graduation requirements....." The
reasoning of the committee was that under current ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ
policy, graduate students are allowed to apply a junior-
level course to degree requirements, with the approval of
their committee.

400-499: Senior-level courses.--The committee
recommended the retention of the phrase marked
deletion: (and may be applicable to some associates
degrees). The committee also found this proposal to be
unusually restrictive. Under current ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ policy, students
may use senior-level courses to meet associate degree
requirements.

500-599: Professional development courses.--The
committee recommended the deletion of the third
sentence. In the opinion of the committee, this
statement is unnecessary. The committee also
recommended changes to the fifth sentence. The
argument for this change was to improve clarity.

600-699: Graduate-level courses.--Change suggested by
the ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Graduate and Professional Curricular Affairs
Committee.

The prohibition on courses being used for both
baccalaureate and advanced degrees is not to be applied
to courses listed in a catalog as repeatable.

Signed: John D. Craven, President, ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate Date: 2/11/98

***

The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #77 on
February 9, 1998:

MOTION
=======

The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate moves to modify the date of Freshman Low
Grade notification to the 6th Friday following the first day of
classes.

EFFECTIVE: Fall 1998

RATIONALE: The present policy, which provides for
reporting of low grades at the end of the 4th week
of classes, was set to coincide with the last day to
withdraw. At that time, the deadline for freshman
withdrawals was the end of the 6th week of classes.
In an action during the 1996-97 academic year,
however, the senate changed the withdrawal deadline
to the 9th Friday after classes begin, without changing
the date for freshman low grade notification.

Signed: John D. Craven, President, ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate Date: 2/11/98

Approved: Joan Wadlow, Chancellor Date: 3/2/98

****

The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #77 on
February 9, 1998:

RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF UNITED ACADEMICS ONGOING NEGOTIATIONS
1/22/98

Whereas United Academics is a democratic organization founded to
protect the professional integrity of the faculty;

Whereas United Academics is an organization with a profound
interest in maintaining effective faculty governance
throughout the University system;

Whereas United Academics and the ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate both strongly
support academic freedom;

Whereas both the ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate and United Academics are
democratically run organizations acting on behalf of the
faculty for complementary interests;

Whereas United Academics takes an active part in constructively
critiquing and advising the administration of the University of
ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ on a wide variety of matters of interest to faculty
members;

Whereas United Academics seeks to support student and staff
constituencies in matters of mutual interest;

Whereas both United Academics and the ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate share an
intense interest in current and future funding of the
University, the consequences to academic programs of that
funding, and the application of those resources to the living
and working conditions of the faculty and their families;

Whereas both United Academics and the ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate
recognize the critical central role of faculty governance in
assuring academic quality;

Whereas the issue of declining faculty morale is of great concern to
both United Academics and the ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate;

Whereas there is an emerging and highly successful working
relationship between United Academics and the ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty
Senate in areas of mutual concern;

Whereas United Academics has been engaged for well over a year in
a good faith effort to negotiate contract with the
administration of the University of ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ;

Therefore be it resolved that the ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate shares the
United Academics position protecting the faculty's rights and
responsibilities in curricular review, assurance of the quality
of academic programs, and granting of degrees at the
University;

Furthermore be it resolved that the ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate supports the
efforts of United Academics to successfully negotiate a fair,
equitable, and timely collective bargaining agreement with
the administration of the University of ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ.

Signed: John D. Craven, President, ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate Date: 2/11/98

****

The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #77 on
February 9, 1998:

MOTION
=======

The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate moves that drafting of the ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ academic
calendar be the responsibility of the Senate's administrative
committee, based upon information supplied by the Office of the
Registrar. The draft calendar would then be approved by the ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ
Faculty Senate, the ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Staff Council, and ASÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ, with the ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ
Coordinating Committee responsible for coordinating the three
reviews and submitting the completed calendar to the chancellor.
The final draft submitted to the Chancellor cannot violate relevant
ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ rules regarding the number of days instruction and related rules
unless the ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate provides a needed one-time
dispensation required by extraordinary circumstances.

EFFECTIVE: Immediately

RATIONALE: The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Governance Coordinating Committee
has failed to abide by certain ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ rules regarding the
calendar or to ask the Senate for revisions to the rules.
Neither has it submitted its drafts to the three
governance groups for their concurrence. Recent policies
by the Board of Regents have made it increasingly
difficulty to maintain our high level of student contact
hours and still satisfy the Regents' demand that we
specify the exact day being added to the calendar to make
up for the loss of instruction on Civil Rights Day.

Signed: John D. Craven, President, ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate Date: 2/11/98

Approved*: Joan Wadlow, Chancellor Date: 3/16/98

*With understanding that Senate motion does not put ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ at variance with BOR policy/action(s).

****

The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #77 on
February 9, 1998:

MOTION
=======

The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate moves to approve the proposed amendments
to the Faculty Alliance Constitution.

EFFECTIVE: Immediately

Signed: John D. Craven, President, ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate Date: 2/11/98

(( )) = deletions
CAPS = additions

University of ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ
FACULTY ALLIANCE

Constitution
Proposed Revisions

ARTICLE I. INTENT

It is the intent of the Board of Regents: l) that the faculty shall
share in the governance of the university, 2) that shared governance
is an integral part of the business of the university, and 3) that
participators in shared governance are empowered by the Board of
Regents to carry out their governance responsibilities to the best of
their abilities without interference or fear of reprisal.

ARTICLE II. NAME

The Board of Regents hereby establishes a mechanism for faculty
system governance consisting of an Alliance, hereinafter "Alliance."

ARTICLE III. AUTHORITY, PURPOSES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

A. Authority

The Alliance receives its authority by policy 03.01.01 of the
University of ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Board of Regents which derives its
authority from the Constitution and statutes of the State of
ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ. The Alliance shall carry out its functions subject to
the authority of the Board of Regents and the President of the
University.

B. Purposes

1. Representation

To provide official representation for the faculty of the
University of ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ in matters which affect the general
welfare of the University and its educational purposes
and effectiveness.

2. Consultation

To provide consultation to the President of the
University and the Board of Regents ((on academic
matters and faculty welfare issues)).

3. Communication

To serve as an instrument by which information which is
of interest and concern to the university system faculty
may be freely collected, disseminated, coordinated, and
discussed.

C. Responsibilities

The Alliance recognizes the faculty of the individual academic
major administrative units as having the primary
responsibility and authority for recommending the
establishment of degree requirements; implementing the
degree requirements; establishing the curriculum, the subject
matter and methods for instruction; determining when
established degree requirements are met; and recommending to
the President of the Board of Regents the granting of degrees
thus achieved. The Alliance shall have AN advisory and
coordinating role in academic affairs; no action of the Alliance
shall abridge individual academic major administrative unit's
authority in academic matters OR BARGAINING UNIT AUTHORITY
REGARDING SUBJECTS OF MANDATORY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.

When issues have statewide impact, the responsibilities of the
Alliance may include, but are not limited to: 1) coordination on
matters relating to academic affairs such as academic
program review; the addition, deletion or merging of academic
programs; curriculum; subject matter and methods of
instruction, those aspects of student life relating to the
educational process such as degree requirements, grading
policy, course coordination and transfer, student probation and
suspension, standards of admission and scholastic standards;
and faculty welfare issues, including, but not limited to
compensation, benefits, appointments, reappointments and
termination, workload, promotions, the granting of tenure,
dismissal, ethics, and 2) other matters relating to the general
welfare of the university, its educational purposes and
effectiveness.

Representatives shall promote maximum dissemination of
information to the local faculty senates and before voting in
the Alliance.

ARTICLE IV. MEMBERSHIP AND ORGANIZATION

A. Membership

The membership of the Alliance shall consist of three faculty
each from the University of ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Anchorage, University of
ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Fairbanks and University of ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Southeast.

If issues require special knowledge, one or more of the three
votes from each campus may be designated to alternate faculty
members.

B. Selection

Representatives to the Alliance shall be selected in such a
manner as prescribed by the UAA Faculty Senate, the ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ
Faculty Senate and the UAS Faculty Council, hereinafter "local
faculty governance groups".

C. Term of service

The term of service shall be one year.

D. Recall of members

Any member may be recalled by the local faculty governance
group by which the member was chosen. The method of recall
shall be determined by the local faculty governance group. That
local faculty governance group shall select a replacement to
complete the term of office.

E. Official Spokesperson

1. Election

The official spokesperson of the Alliance is the Alliance Chair.
The Chair shall be elected by and from the voting membership
by a majority vote, with at least one vote from each MAU
required.

2. Duties

The Alliance Chair shall a) preside over all meetings of the
Alliance and b) represent the Alliance, except that the Chair is
required to present majority and minority opinions regardless
of personal opinion. The chair may delegate these duties to
another Alliance member.

F. Task Forces

The Alliance may establish task forces independently or in
response to requests of the Board of Regents or the President
of the University to consider complex system wide issues
relating primarily to academic matters or faculty welfare
issues.

Issues and suggestions of the task force, from whatever
source, shall be referred to local faculty senates and council
before action occurs at the Alliance level.

ARTICLE V. MEETINGS

A. Regular and special meetings

The Alliance shall have ((four)) A MINIMUM OF EIGHT regular
meetings during the academic year. At least once per
semester, the Alliance shall meet with the President of the
University to identify system issues and plan for the coming
year. Special Alliance meetings may be called by the Board of
Regents, the President of the University, the Chair of the
Alliance, or on petition of one-third of the membership of the
Alliance.

B. Voting

Voting shall be by simple majority of the full voting
membership to include at least one member from each MAU,
except for amendments to the Alliance constitution or bylaws.
Amendments to membership rights require a unanimous vote.

Representatives may defer voting pending action by local
faculty senates and council on the issue.

ARTICLE VI. QUORUM

A minimum of a simple majority of the voting membership to include
at least one member from each MAU shall constitute a quorum.

ARTICLE VII. PARLIAMENTARY AUTHORITY

The parliamentary authority shall be the latest edition of Robert's
Rules of Order.

ARTICLE VIII. CONSTITUTIONS AND BYLAWS, AMENDMENTS,
APPROVAL

A. Constitutions and bylaws

The constitution and bylaws, once passed by the Alliance, shall
be transmitted to the President of the University for approval
and to the Board of Regents for action. Copies of the Alliance
constitution and bylaws shall be maintained in the system
governance office.

B. Amendments; distribution prior to voting

Amendments to the constitution and bylaws shall be sent to
Alliance members and to the local faculty senates and council
at least 30 days prior to the Alliance meeting at which they
will be considered. Amendments to the constitution require
seven Alliance member votes.

ARTICLE IX. REVIEW AND TRANSMITTAL OF PROPOSALS

A. Review

Submission of administrative proposals and issues affecting
the statewide university system faculty shall be in accordance
with University Regulation 03.01.01. Those administrative
proposals submitted in the summer months shall be acted upon
by the local faculty senates and council, and the Alliance by
October 15. Proposals relating to faculty requiring immediate
implementation for compliance with state or federal law shall
be submitted to the Faculty Alliance for review, and may be
implemented prior to Alliance action but do not represent
official action until the local senates and council are involved
in the actions.

B. Transmittal to the President

The system governance executive officer shall submit the
original proposal in writing, together with faculty governance
input, including majority and minority viewpoints, to the
President of the University for information or action.

C. Transmittal to the Board of Regents

The Chair of the Alliance shall present Alliance views. The
Chair shall present the minority viewpoint to the Board of
Regents if requested by the minority in writing to the Chair
before the meeting.

ARTICLE X. ACTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF REGENTS

A. Action by the President

The President of the University shall, in writing, approve,
disapprove, or modify an Alliance action, and notify the Chair
and the system governance executive officer within forty-five
(45) days of receiving notification of the action by the system
governance executive officer.

B. Modifications by the President

The President of the University may modify an Alliance action
if the modification does not effectively contravene or nullify
the purpose or principle involved in the action.

C. Disapproval's

The President of the University shall inform the Alliance of
the reasons for any disapproval or modification within one
month of disapproving or modifying an Alliance action.

D. Board of Regents notification and action

Alliance actions which are modified or disapproved by the
President of the University, together with the statement of
reasons, shall be placed on the next Board of Regents' meeting
agenda for the information of the Board if requested by the
Alliance. At the request of either the President of the
University or the Alliance, the Alliance action which has been
modified or disapproved shall be brought before the Board for
action. The decision of the Board of Regents is final.

ARTICLE XI. HANDBOOK

The Alliance shall annually submit a directory of Alliance members,
a description of the Alliance and how it works, and the annual
Alliance calendar to the system governance executive officer for
inclusion in the governance handbook. This handbook shall be
distributed to the Board of Regents and to the shared governance
groups.

ARTICLE XII. REPORTS

The Alliance shall ((annually)) prepare ((a)) reportS of activities TO
THE BOARD OF REGENTS PRIOR TO EACH MEETING OF THE BOARD OF
REGENTS. ((This)) THESE reportS shall be submitted to the system
governance executive officer for compilation into ((a)) single
((annual)) reportS of governance activities for submission to the
President of the University and the Board of Regents. The system
governance executive officer shall maintain Alliance ELECTRONIC
communications ((via vax, the vax bulletin board)) and prepare
system governance news for inclusion in ((vax)) ELECTRONIC and
printed newsletters.

***

The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #77 on
February 9, 1998:

MOTION:
=======

The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate moves to affirm the Faculty Alliance motion
passed on January 22. It is imperative that there be faculty
representation on a systemwide Presidential search committee.

EFFECTIVE: Immediately

Signed: John D. Craven, President, ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate Date: 2/11/98

MOTION:
=======

"The Faculty Alliance of the University of ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ, by unanimous vote,
expresses its astonishment and deep regret that the University of
ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ's Board of Regents intent to proceed on its own to screen,
interview, and select the University's next president while offering
only token participation to the University's faculty. Should this
decision stand in the form implied by the Board's motion of 14
January, 1998, it will do harm to the morale of the academic
institution, demean its reputation, and make more difficult the work
of the new president of the Regents' institution as he or she
struggles to gain the respect of its faculty and become president of
the University of ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ. These are not the attributes of leadership
we expect of the Board of Regents and the procedure would call into
question the academic standards of any person who would accept the
position as president. We urge you to consider that a successful
search cannot be defined merely by the attributes of the individual
who accepts the position. Of at least as great relevance to a
successful search is a process that unites the university community
in a common purpose, resulting in a president with broad- based
support among the various university constituencies. In the end, a
successful search is one in which the process ultimately forges a
stronger and more resilient institution. In the end, a successful
search is one in which the process is fully integrated with the
principles of shared governance. This action is effective January
22, 1998."

Rationale:

A. It is the general practice of most colleges and universities to
form presidential search committees out of representatives
from their diverse constituent groups: faculty, staff,
administrators, students, community representatives, and
members of the board. The president of our University will be
working with all of these groups and their collective
assessment should be allowed to narrow the pool of candidates
to those whom all or most of these groups could work with
comfortably and profitably in the years to come.

Further, most prospective candidates expect to deal with
search committees of this type. What message is sent to the
candidates when the Board is its own search committee? (1)
It does not trust or respect the judgment of its own personnel.
(2) It and it alone will be making many of the decisions which
this person will be executing. (3) It will be micro-managing
the operations of the University.

B. The Board may find that its search procedure discourages and
alienates able candidates, who are looking for a cooperative
and supportive environment. This is especially true when they
will be faced with the fiscal and organizational challenges of
this university.

C. Finally, this action of the Board harms the morale of the
University's faculty. To be excluded in this way from the
presidential search speaks eloquently to the University
community of the Board's evaluation of faculty. The Board's
action says they, not we, are the university. It is the Board's
vision, not our shared vision that will determine the
University's shape in the years to come.