{\rtf1\mac\ansicpg10000\uc1 \deff7\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\upr{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset256\fprq2{\*\panose 00020206030504050203}Times New Roman;}{\f2\fnil\fcharset256\fprq2{\*\panose 00020703090202050204}Courier New;}
{\f4\fnil\fcharset256\fprq2{\*\panose 00020005000000000000}Times;}{\f7\fnil\fcharset256\fprq2{\*\panose 00020b05030304040402}Geneva;}{\f12\fnil\fcharset256\fprq2{\*\panose 00020205020603050602}New York;}
}{\*\ud{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset256\fprq2{\*\panose 00020206030504050203}Times New Roman;}{\f2\fnil\fcharset256\fprq2{\*\panose 00020703090202050204}Courier New;}{\f4\fnil\fcharset256\fprq2{\*\panose 00020005000000000000}Times;}
{\f7\fnil\fcharset256\fprq2{\*\panose 00020b05030304040402}Geneva;}{\f12\fnil\fcharset256\fprq2{\*\panose 00020205020603050602}New York;}}}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;
\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;
\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f7\lang1033\cgrid \snext0 Normal;}{\s1\qj\keepn\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\f4\ul\lang1033\cgrid \sbasedon0 \snext0 heading 1;}{\*\cs10 \additive 
Default Paragraph Font;}{\*\cs15 \additive \sbasedon10 page number;}{\s16\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f7\lang1033\cgrid \sbasedon0 \snext16 sp3;}{\s17\qc\sl480\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\b\f12\fs28\lang1033\cgrid \sbasedon0 \snext17 Headings;}{\s18\qj\fi360\sl480\slmult0\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f12\fs28\lang1033\cgrid \sbasedon0 \snext18 Paragraph;}{\s19\ri-800\widctlpar
\tx980\tx1800\tx5760\faauto\adjustright\rin-800\lin0\itap0 \f12\lang1033\cgrid \sbasedon0 \snext19 senate minutes;}{\s20\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f2\fs20\lang1033\cgrid \sbasedon0 \snext20 Plain Text;}{
\s21\qj\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f4\lang1033\cgrid \sbasedon0 \snext21 Body Text;}{\s22\fi-360\li720\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 \f4\cf1\lang1033\cgrid \sbasedon0 \snext22 Body Text Indent 2;}{
\s23\li1440\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0 \lang1033\cgrid \sbasedon0 \snext23 Body Text 2;}}{\info{\title MINUTES}{\author Governance Office}{\operator Elizabeth Solano}{\creatim\yr2001\mo11\dy19\hr14\min47}
{\revtim\yr2002\mo2\dy4\hr12\min12}{\printim\yr2001\mo11\dy9\hr13\min19}{\version3}{\edmins0}{\nofpages11}{\nofwords5914}{\nofchars33714}{\*\company U of A}{\nofcharsws41403}{\vern8255}}\margb720 
\ftnbj\aenddoc\hyphhotz0\notabind\sprstsp\otblrul\brkfrm\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\sprstsm\truncex\nolead\nospaceforul\msmcap\lytprtmet\hyphcaps0\horzdoc\dgmargin\dghspace120\dgvspace120\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow3
\jcompress\viewkind4\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\nolnhtadjtbl \fet0\sectd \endnhere\sectdefaultcl {\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3
\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}
{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain 
\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f7\lang1033\cgrid {MINUTES
\par ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ FACULTY SENATE MEETING #104
\par MONDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2001
\par WOOD CENTER BALLROOM
\par 
\par 
\par }\pard\plain \s19\ri-1080\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin-1080\lin0\itap0 \f12\lang1033\cgrid {\f7 I\tab The meeting was called to order by President-Elect Chukwu at 1:30 p.m.
\par }\pard\plain \widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f7\lang1033\cgrid {
\par \tab A.\tab ROLL CALL 
\par \tab 
\par \tab }{\caps Members Present:\tab \tab Members Absent:}{
\par \tab Barnhardt, C.\tab \tab \tab Bond, S.
\par \tab Bruder, J.    \tab \tab \tab Bristow, W.
\par \tab Bult, A. \tab \tab \tab \tab Bueler, E.
\par \tab Chukwu, G.  \tab \tab \tab Kramer, D.
\par \tab Curda, L.      \tab \tab \tab Whiteledge, T.
\par \tab Davis, M.     \tab \tab \tab 
\par \tab Eicken, H.     \tab \tab \tab 
\par \tab Gladden, J.  \tab \tab \tab 
\par \tab Hannigan, M. \tab \tab \tab 
\par \tab Holton, G.      \tab \tab \tab OTHERS PRESENT:
\par \tab Illingworth, R. \tab \tab \tab Caulfield, R.
\par \tab Leguard, J.  \tab \tab \tab Duffy, L.
\par \tab Lin, C.   \tab \tab \tab \tab Fritz, S.
\par \tab Lincoln, T.    \tab \tab \tab Gold, C.
\par \tab Lindahl, M.    \tab \tab \tab Hardenbrook, J.
\par \tab Mason, J.     \tab \tab \tab Layral, S.
\par \tab McBeath, J. \tab \tab \tab Lind, M.
\par \tab McLean-Nelson, D.(M. Chapman)\tab O'Neill, D.
\par \tab McRoy, P.    \tab \tab \tab Reichardt, P.
\par \tab Murray, M.   \tab \tab \tab Steadman, J.
\par \tab Pinney, P. (C. Dexter)    \tab 
\par \tab Roth, M.\tab \tab \tab \tab 
\par \tab Swazo, N. \tab \tab \tab \tab 
\par \tab Weber, J.\tab \tab \tab \tab 
\par \tab Zilberkant, E.\tab \tab \tab 
\par 
\par }\pard\plain \s19\ri-540\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin-540\lin0\itap0 \f12\lang1033\cgrid {\f7 \tab NON-VOTING MEMBERS PRESENT:\tab NON-VOTING MEMBERS ABSENT:
\par }\pard \s19\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\f7 \tab Miller, D. - President, ASÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ\tab \tab Graduate Student, GSO
\par \tab McCrea, S.  - President, ÃÛÌÒÓ°ÏñSC\tab Collins, J.  - Dean, SOM
\par \tab Leipzig, J. - Dean, CLA
\par \tab Tremarello, A - University Registrar (G. }{Gregory)}{\f7 
\par 
\par \tab B.\tab The minutes to Meeting #103 (September 24, 2001) were approved as distributed via e-mail.  
\par }\pard\plain \widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f7\lang1033\cgrid {
\par \tab C.\tab The agenda was approved with the addition of item V. F., Motion to suspend the procedures for votes of censure.
\par 
\par 
\par II\tab Status of Chancellor's Office Actions
\par }{\b \tab }{A.\tab Motions approved: 
\par \tab \tab 1.\tab Motion to amend the Baccalaureate Core 
\par \tab \tab \tab Curriculum including the Philosophy
\par \tab \tab \tab Statement.  
\par \tab B.\tab Motions pending:  none
\par 
\par 
\par III\tab Comments from Chancellor, Marshall Lind - 
\par 
\par The Chancellor had a couple of items that he brought to our attention.  First of all is appreciation for the good work done in 
preparation for the accreditation review.  A summary of the visit is available.  They are delighted with how well the visit went.  The draft report is expected soon and we can offer corrections for errors in factual matters.  The report will then be final
i
zed and acted on by the full commission on December 13 in Portland.  They will meet with the full commission at that time and talk about the report.  A formal vote will then be taken.  Chancellor Lind is very sure that it will be positive.  He is really p
leased with the reception they received.  The team was very impressed with the comprehensiveness of the self-study.  
\par 
\par Chancellor Lind indicated that as of this morning the budget request information can be accessed on the web.  The Board of Regents will di
scuss the budget request on November 8th.  This includes the operating budget.  The additional amount of new money requested is $18.4 million.  It will include just under $4 million of new increment money.  The rest of the money being proposed is for sala
r
y maintenance, fixed cost increases, some administrative program support, and keeping pace with technology.  Chancellor Lind thanked those involved in the initiative process.  Paul Reichardt has been heavily involved in the initiative process as a member/
l
eader of SAC.  The capital budget request is also available on the web.  The proposal to the Board of Regents is for $206 million.  It is broken out into safety, renewal and repair ($20 million); additional money to finish the master planning effort for t
h
e community campuses; and also some planning for the consolidation of the food service.  Change would be affected in the Lola Tilly Commons.  If we center all food service in Wood Center, we will use the Lola Tilly Commons for other purposes.   We also ha
v
e in the budget a $9.5 million item for the classroom expansion for TVC; it may include renovation of the old courthouse building or new construction.  We also have $70 million in place for a new biosciences building for West Ridge.  We are involved with 
Anchorage in the need for some additional leased space that would be used during construction.  As a part of this whole effort is $7 million for the next phase of the Fine Arts renovation and $18 million for the Lena Point fisheries facilities.  
\par 
\par The other
 item of significant money of interest to many is where we are for the first payment of the BP fund.   Statewide has received about $2.6 million.  Chancellor Lind has a summary of how that money is currently being used and what is being discussed for the 
next part of the payment.  The use of this money was built around a total of $6 million.  We expect to receive the next payment in December.  A copy of the memo from the President's office was distributed at the meeting.  
\par 
\par Peter McRoy asked about the funding of distinguished faculty positions with the BP money and if these were tenured positions.  Chancellor Lind indicated that it would probably be a combination and it will vary within the respective schools.  
\par 
\par Godwin Chukwu asked where we stand in regards to the FY03 initiatives.  Chancellor Lind indicated there is a detail listing in the operating budget.  There is a breakdown of each category and includes which initiatives have been recommended.  
\par 
\par Linda Curda asked the Chancellor to address the salary i
ssue.  This was identified in the self-study.  Chancellor Lind said this is being addressed at the statewide level and will be part of future negotiations.  It is a serious issue.  The salary maintenance in FY03 is for that obligation we currently have wi
t
h existing contracts.  The FY04 will be the budget that will include future negotiations.   Paul Reichardt indicated that statewide's goal is to do a comprehensive salary study this year, and then work with bargaining units to decide what our approach wil
l be for FY04 budget requests.  
\par 
\par 
\par \tab Comments from Provost, Paul Reichardt -
\par }\pard \fi-720\li720\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {
\par }\pard \widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {Paul Reichardt indicated ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ has now surfaced from accreditation and are in the middle of three projects.  We are into the FY04 state budget initiative process.  The initiative sub
mission deadline is end of October.  With the exception of things that were proposed for FY03 and didn't make it into the budget, we will wait until the Board acts, then decide what to do with them.  
\par 
\par The Provost's office is working on a list of ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ people to serve on the statewide budget committees, and also a list of people for each of the initiative areas for the ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ committees.   
\par 
\par Last week a request was sent out to deans and directors for proposals for the FY03 federal initiative budget process.  These need to be into Mary Floyd by November 30.  
\par 
\par The final project is the academic degree program reviews.  A schedule has been set for every degree to be reviewed in a five-ye
ar cycle.  This year there are about 15-20 degree programs that will be reviewed.  Norm Swazo indicated that current and former Senate members may be asked to serve as external reviewers for the degree program reviews.  
\par 
\par Peter McRoy asked how the federal initiative process relates to the academic development of the university.  Reichardt indicated that one of the questions to be answered would be how they related to ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ goals.  
\par 
\par }\pard \fi-720\li720\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {
\par }\pard \widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {IV\tab Governance Reports
\par 
\par \tab A.\tab ASÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ - D. Miller
\par 
\par Derek Miller, Josh Steadman, ASÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Senate member and Joseph Hardenbrook, Student Regent, attended the meeting.  
\par 
\par Derek Miller stated that ASÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ has filled all their director positions.  They have worked hard to fill the TVC relations director.   Jake Poole and Scott McCrea have helped
 with that position.  ASÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ is trying to get some student senate members to hold office hours at the Downtown Center to help get communication going between the ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ campus and the TVC campus.  
\par 
\par The government relation's director, Erin McGrath, is working 
with Joe Hardenbrook on the full funding campaign.  They have a road show, which will start in Fairbanks in February to publicize student government's support for full funding.  The campaign is called "Building ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ's Future".  
\par 
\par The Student Saver progra
m is taking off--they have three new businesses that give ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ students' discounts.  They have been working on increased involvement of students on ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ committees.  Childcare is another issue and they are trying to figure out what ASÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ can do and what is 
needed.  Derek attended the Alumni Association banquet this pass weekend.  Finally, ASÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ is looking at the non-discrimination statement as well.  
\par 
\par 
\par \tab B.\tab Staff Council - S. McCrea
\par 
\par Scott McCrea stated that Staff Council is having a great year and they are d
oing a lot of exciting things.  On September 28th they conducted a new staff orientation.  It was very successful, with about 25 staff attending.  The program included an overview of the history of ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ, its' current mission, an overview of the different d
epartments, and the governance structure.  Chancellor Lind attended and some departments, which provide services to staff also, gave a presentation.  It concluded with a walking tour of lower campus. 
\par 
\par We have a couple of ad hoc committees that are off to a
 good start.  One is a statewide ad hoc committee to implement a volunteer leave program.  Right now they are in the process of doing the research into this program.  They will take it to statewide within a few months.     The Staff Training ad hoc commit
tee is looking at what training is provided to new staff at the department level.  
\par 
\par New week Scott McCrea will be visiting Bethel and Dillingham.  He will be visiting the staff at the campuses to find out what their needs are and he will also be giving presentations to the high schools for the Admissions Office.  
\par 
\par An item they will be voting on at their next meeting will be the non-discrimination policy amendment.   They held a first reading at their last meeting.  The motion before the Senate is modeled after the Staff Council motion.  
\par 
\par 
\par \tab C.\tab President's Comments - N. Swazo
\par 
\par The Faculty Alliance had a retreat with President Hamilton.  That went quite well.  We had a wide-ranging and favorable discussion about administrative and faculty cultures.  We considered how faculty work and their role in faculty governance an
d its contribution to academic governance in general.  The President listened carefully and took to heart what we said about the way we would like to work with the administration.  Norm Swazo subsequently met with President Hamilton to discuss the memo co
n
cerning policies and procedures for direct appointments.  That was a worthwhile conversation.  President Hamilton is now aware of why we hold the position we do.  There have been some consultations on completed or pending administrator appointments coming
 
forward from statewide.  This includes the position for Vice President for Research, which is in its finalist stage.  The president's office did send out copies of the search committee's comments and vitae of the finalists to members of the Faculty Allian
c
e for review and comment.  There was a consultation request on the candidate for the position of Director of the Center for Educational Excellence.  We are starting to see President Hamilton make reasonable effort to consult faculty governance representat
ives.  Swazo added that he will be attending the System Governance Council retreat with the President, following the December Board of Regents meeting.  
\par 
\par 
\par \tab D.\tab President-Elect's Comments - G. Chukwu
\par 
\par Godwin Chukwu indicated that we have successfully launche
d the maiden issue of the Senate newsletter.  We have received positive comments from some faculty.  The next college to be featured will be the College of Rural ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ.  Other feature articles will include one from Dr. Carol Gold, Academic Liaison.  We w
e
lcome any related information on the faculty that you want to include in the newsletter.  We are asking the following college/school to contribute a feature article as follows:  December--CSEM; February--SFOS; March--SALRM & SOEd; and April--SOM & SME.  M
ore copies of the newsletter will be distributed in November.  The newsletter is also available on the Senate web page.  
\par 
\par 
\par V\tab New Business
\par 
\par \tab A.\tab Motion to approve the ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Academic Development Plan, submitted by the Administrative Committee  
\par 
\par Godwin Chukwu introduced the motion and asked for an amendment to change the review to spring 2003.  The amended motion passed unanimously.  
\par 
\par MOTION:  
\par ======
\par 
\par The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate moves to approve the ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Academic Development Plan developed in 2001 with the recommendation that the plan be formally reviewed by the ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Administration and the ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate during spring semester 2003.
\par 
\par 
\par \tab EFFECTIVE:  \tab Immediately
\par 
\par \tab RATIONALE:  \tab This motion provides the formal approval 
\par \tab \tab of the plan by the Senate and sets a timeline for its 
\par \tab \tab implementation and evaluation for prospective revision 
\par \tab \tab as needed.
\par 
\par 
\par 
\par 
\par B.\tab Motion to eliminate the credit hour restriction of correspondence study work for certificates, associate and AAS degrees, and bachelor's degrees, submitted by Curricular Affairs 
\par 
\par Ron Illingworth introduced the motion and indicated that this action eliminates the limited use of ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ correspondence courses.  Joe Mason agreed with the motion but indicated that the 
broader issue of distance delivered courses may need to be reviewed.  The question of residency credit and the ability of students to take all correspondence courses for a degree were discussed.  The motion passed without objections.  
\par 
\par MOTION:
\par ======
\par 
\par }\pard\plain \s21\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f4\lang1033\cgrid {\f7 The
 ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate moves to eliminate the credit hour restriction limiting the use of correspondence study work for certificates, associate and AAS degrees, and bachelor's degrees (page 26, 2001-2002 ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ catalog).
\par }\pard\plain \widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f7\lang1033\cgrid {
\par 
\par CAPS  =     Additions
\par [[   ]]  =      Deletions
\par 
\par 
\par }{\b GENERAL UNIVERSITY REQUIREMENTS
\par }{
\par 
\par [[No more than 15 semester hours of correspondence study work are accepted toward an associate degree, 32 semester hours are accepted toward a bachelor's degree.]]  If you want to use correspondence study credit
s from a school other than ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ to satisfy degree requirements, you must have the approval of those courses by the dean of the school or college from which you will graduate; otherwise, you take the risk of not having the courses accepted.  
\par 
\par 
\par \tab EFFECTIVE:  \tab Fall 2002
\par 
\par \tab RATIONALE:  \tab In a time of technological change in the area
\par \tab \tab of instructional delivery, the existing policy has become 
\par \tab \tab outdated and no longer reflective of our existing 
\par \tab \tab capabilities in this area of distance delivery.  ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ 
\par \tab \tab departments are developing and delivering courses and 
\par \tab \tab entire programs wholly by distance delivery and ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ 
\par \tab \tab has an extensive history of delivering courses to rural 
\par \tab \tab students via distance delivery.  It no longer seems 
\par \tab \tab reasonable or appropriate to single out one distance 
\par \tab \tab delivery mode for these restrictions.
\par 
\par 
\par 
\par 
\par \tab C.\tab Motion to amend the policy on Course Restrictions for graduate degrees, submitted by Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee 
\par 
\par Hajo Eicken introduced the motion deleting the restriction on graduate correspondence courses.  This motion is similar to the undergraduate motion on correspondence courses.  The motion passed unanimously.  
\par 
\par MOTION:
\par ======
\par 
\par The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate moves to amend the policy on Course Restrictions (page 40, 2001-2002 ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ catalog) for graduate degrees as follows:
\par 
\par CAPS  =     Additions
\par [[   ]]  =      Deletions
\par 
\par 
\par }{\b Course Restrictions 
\par }{
\par You may not use [[correspondence courses,]] credit by examination, audited courses, 500-level courses or courses taken under the credit/no credit option to fulfill the basic course requirements of any degree program.  No more than 12 credits of special to
pics courses (693 or 695) or individual study (697) may be used toward a graduate degree.  Requests for exceptions to the limit must be approved by the dean of the Graduate School.
\par 
\par \tab EFFECTIVE:  \tab Fall 2002
\par 
\par \tab RATIONALE:  \tab The existing policy on course restrictions has 
\par \tab \tab not kept pace with technological innovations in distance 
\par \tab \tab delivery of courses, most of which have been implemented 
\par \tab \tab at ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ.  At the same time, current policy (i.e., that 
\par \tab \tab governing transfer of credits from other institutions as 
\par \tab \tab well as instruments of oversight for graduate courses) 
\par \tab \tab ensures that distance-delivered courses meet the 
\par \tab \tab standards of ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ's graduate degree programs.  The 
\par \tab \tab reference to "correspondence courses" as one particular, 
\par \tab \tab ill-defined form of distance-delivered courses is deemed 
\par \tab \tab superfluous in this context.
\par 
\par 
\par 
\par 
\par \tab D.\tab Resolution on the search for the UA Vice President for Research, submitted by Faculty Affairs 
\par 
\par Peter McRoy introduced the resolution.  Joan Leguard asked for an amendment to add "on campus" to the third paragraph.  After additional discussion on the hiring process the amended resolution passed unanimously.  
\par 
\par }\pard\plain \s22\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f4\cf1\lang1033\cgrid {\f7 RESOLUTION:
\par =========
\par 
\par WHEREAS, The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate notes that the recent search 
\par \tab process by the statewide administration for the candidates for 
\par \tab Vice President for Research did not proceed according to
\par \tab normal practices of university governance; and
\par 
\par WHEREAS, In particular, the ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate expresses concern 
\par \tab that Dr. Craig Dorman was not interviewed on campus as a 
\par \tab candidate for this position; and
\par 
\par WHEREAS, The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate recognizes that he did come to 
\par \tab campus as a candidate for the IARC director position, but
\par \tab faculty outside that area are unlikely to have met him then 
\par \tab and he was not interviewed on campus as a vice president 
\par \tab finalist; and
\par 
\par WHEREAS, This seems particularly problematic since there has been 
\par \tab faculty concern over the need for, and the scope of, the
\par \tab position of the Vice President for Research; now
\par 
\par THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate sends 
\par \tab notice to President Hamilton that such practices are
\par \tab considered outside the norm for university governance; and 
\par 
\par BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate considers
\par \tab this an unfortunate gap in the process and reminds the
\par \tab President that such administrators are here on behalf of the
\par \tab faculty and students, both of whom have every intent of
\par \tab reviewing, criticizing, commenting, evaluating, and passing
\par \tab judgment on their actions.
\par }\pard\plain \widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f7\lang1033\cgrid {
\par 
\par 
\par 
\par \tab E.\tab Motion to recommend that the UA Board of Regents' amend the UA non-discrimination statement, submitted by the Administrative Committee 
\par 
\par Godwin Chukwu indicated this motion came from the Governance Coordinating Committee as a request t
o amend Regents' policy.  Charlie Dexter said he was opposed to adding language to a policy document that goes beyond what Federal law requires, particularly in the areas of discrimination.  Once you open a door then people will want to add other things t
o
 the list.  Mitch Roth stated that once you create a policy that gives a list of protected categories you automatically exclude everybody else.  Mitch Roth offered an amendment to eliminate the list.  It was stated that the list addresses past and existin
g problems of discrimination.  Scott McCrea was asked if Staff Council had researched federal and state law.  He indicated that they did not look at current law.  The motion to amend failed with a vote of 2 ayes.  
\par 
\par Mike Davis proposed an amendment to delet
e the first phase dealing with federal and state law.  The amendment failed unanimously.  Regent Joe Hardenbrook contributed a comment that it was his understanding that the list of items for which the university will not discriminate against is based on 
s
tate and federal law as a prerequisite for an institution to receive federal funding.  Linda Curda proposed a motion to table this motion and/or refer it back to the Administrative Committee for further research to check on the legality of the language an
d to bring it back at the December meeting.  The motion to refer passed with 2 nays.  
\par 
\par MOTION TO REFER:  
\par ==============
\par 
\par The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate moves to refer the motion to amend the UA Nondiscrimination Statement to the Administrative Committee for further information on the legality of the change and to bring it back to the Senate for action at the December meeting.  

\par 
\par 
\par \tab EFFECTIVE:  \tab Immediately
\par 
\par 
\par \tab \tab \tab \tab **
\par 
\par MOTION: 
\par ======
\par 
\par The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate recommends that the University of ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Board of Regents' amend the UA Nondiscrimination Statement (P04.01.020) as follows:
\par 
\par 
\par CAPS  = \tab Additions to the statement 
\par 
\par 
\par }{\b\ul Nondiscrimination Statement}{\b \tab \tab \tab \tab P04.01.020
\par }{
\par }\pard\plain \s23\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \lang1033\cgrid {\f7 In accordance with federal and state laws, ille
gal discrimination in employment against any individual because of race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, veteran status, physical or mental disability, marital status or changes in marital status, pregnancy or parenthood, or SEXUAL ORIENTATION
 is prohibited.  Decisions affecting an individual\rquote s employment will be based on the individual\rquote s qualifications, abilities and performance, as appropriate.
\par 
\par 
\par \tab EFFECTIVE:  \tab The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate requests that first 
\par \tab \tab discussion of the amendment be placed on the Human 
\par \tab \tab Resources Committee agenda at the March BOR meeting.
\par 
\par \tab RATIONALE:  \tab Under the current policy, students, staff and 
\par \tab \tab faculty could be discriminated against because of their 
\par \tab \tab sexual orientation.  As an institution of higher learning, 
\par \tab \tab the University of ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ should be setting an example to 
\par \tab \tab the rest of the state in terms of recognizing and 
\par \tab \tab respecting all of the diverse peoples of ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ.  By adding 
\par \tab \tab sexual orientation to the policy, the university is further 
\par \tab \tab sending a message to all students, staff, and faculty that 
\par \tab \tab this is a place where they are welcome, accepted, and 
\par \tab \tab protected against discrimination. 
\par }\pard\plain \widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f7\lang1033\cgrid {
\par 
\par 
\par 
\par \tab F.\tab Motion to suspend the procedure for votes of censure or votes of no confidence of administrators, submitted by Norm Swazo.
\par 
\par Norm Swazo indicated that in the past there has been a number of occasions in which faculty in various colleges, school, or campuses have undertaken a vote of no confidence in the director or a dean.  To the extent that has occurr
ed, Senate procedure has not been followed.  This past week he was asked by a school to sit in on a meeting as an observer.  As a result of that particular faculty discussion, he decided we need to pay attention to due process.  We have a Senate procedure
 
in place.  However, upon examining that procedure it's clear there are various problems with that procedure.  For example, administrators are not given an opportunity to respond in any way under current procedures.  His recommendation is that in light of 
t
he guidelines for the evaluation process for Administrators, we use this process temporarily while the Faculty Appeals & Oversight Committee re-examines the censure procedure that is now in place.  The committee can issue a revised procedure for how we wi
ll undertake votes of censure or votes of no confidence in administrators.  The motion passed unanimously.  
\par 
\par MOTION:
\par ======
\par 
\par The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate moves to suspend the procedure for votes of censure or votes of no confidence of administrators as approved by the Senate at its Meeting #17 on 9 March 1990, pending review and revision of this procedure by the Senate Faculty Appeal
s & Oversight Committee. 
\par 
\par In the interim, the Senate requires that faculty calling into question their confidence in an administrator of a college, school, or campus request by memorandum to the ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Provost and the ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate President an immediate
 evaluation of the administrator according to the process defined in the current policy \ldblquote Guidelines for the Evaluation Process for Administrators\rdblquote 
 (as passed at Senate Meeting #97, 30 October 2000).  This request must be warranted by a simple majority vote
 (absentee vote included) of all academic and/or special rank faculty of that unit.  This vote must be taken in a manner that accords with Board of Regents regulation on Open Meetings (R02.06.01 ff.).}{\cf6  }{
 A faculty vote of censure or vote of no confidence taken contrary to this interim procedure will be considered out of order by the Faculty Senate and without merit for official action.
\par 
\par 
\par \tab EFFECTIVE:  \tab Immediately, to be in effect until the Senate 
\par \tab \tab approves a revised procedure for votes of censure/votes 
\par \tab \tab of no confidence of administrators.
\par }\pard\plain \s21\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f4\lang1033\cgrid {
\par \tab }{\f7 RATIONALE: \tab Faculty at several schools and campuses at 
\par \tab \tab ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ have in recent time called for and taken votes of 
\par \tab \tab censure/votes of no confidence of administrators
\par \tab \tab without following the approved Senate procedure.  The
\par \tab \tab procedure itself that was passed by the Senate in 1990,
\par \tab \tab however, suffers from several flaws as noted in a
\par \tab \tab statement made by then Chancellor Patrick J. O'Rourke
\par \tab \tab (in memorandum dated April 20, 1990).  Changes in
\par \tab \tab accreditation standards concerning institutional integrity 
\par \tab \tab provide incentive for the Senate to revisit the approved 
\par \tab \tab Senate procedure to assure due process to 
\par \tab \tab administrators, including attention to requisite 
\par \tab \tab confidentiality when premature and/or unsubstantiated 
\par \tab \tab allegations may otherwise impact negatively on an 
\par \tab \tab administrator\rquote s reputation and ability to 
\par \tab \tab administer effectively a college, school, or campus.
\par }\pard\plain \widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f7\lang1033\cgrid {
\par 
\par 
\par 
\par 
\par VI\tab Discussion Items   
\par 
\par \tab A.\tab ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Master Plan (http://www.uaf.edu/mastplan/) 
\par 
\par Peter McRoy stated that the Chancellor recently held two meetings to present the Master Plan to the community and to the university community and to ask for review.  We saw a draft plan last spring.  When he reviewed the plan, he questioned some of the pr
emises of the plan.  It needs some real feedback from the university community.   
\par 
\par Rick Caulfield, the chair of the ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Master Planning Committee, addressed the Senate on the issue.  The Master Planning Committee has been meeting since last spring with a c
onsultant.  We are in the midst of a process to develop a campus master plan with the goal of having it completed by December.  The current draft has had a lot of comments.  Recently they held two open house meetings at the Noel Wien Library and at Hess C
o
mmons.  A new draft will reflect comments received from the two meetings.  He encourages all members of the Senate to take a close look at the draft and make comments.  The committee hopes to have another update by the end of the week.  Before the next BO
R
 meeting the committee will meet four times.  A final public comment period will be during the week of December 1-7 and it will include a display in Wood Center for people to look at.  They hope to finalize the work of the committee by December 21 and for
ward it on to the Chancellor for review.  The focus of this plan is the Fairbanks campus itself and does not include other campuses.   
\par 
\par Paul Reichardt indicated that there is some money in the FY02 budget to begin the master planning process at one of the 
rural sites.  Kathleen Schedler would be the person to ask what is going on in term of master planning for other campuses.  Ron Illingworth spoke about the use of the term "master plan" and believes it is more a "facilities plan".  That should be clarifie
d
 and will eliminate any confusion with something like the "academic development plan".  Paul Reichardt indicated that as you need to look at the plan as academics, there are two big issues--where do we have sites that we can add building and do you want t
o
 use them for buildings or parking spots?  The second question is that no matter which site is chosen, there is no way around the fact that as time goes on we will be transporting more and more students and faculty the length of campus.  How do we design 
Yukon Drive, which is our chance to move people back and forth quickly?
\par 
\par 
\par \tab B.\tab Classified Research at ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ 
\par 
\par Norm Swazo stated there is a handout with definitions of classified research and a discussion handout was attached to the agenda.  Swazo's  "President\rquote 
s Comments" on classified research relate to the importance of our discussion in terms of academic duty.  The question was raised earlier how we are to understand classified research for the purpose of this discussion.  Swazo referred the Senators to the 
handout on definitions saying those definitions should orient our discussion.  Swazo noted also that Board of Regents policy already allows both classified and proprietary research to be conducted at the university.
\par 
\par --------------------
\par 
\par The following comments were distributed as a handout, as "President's Comments" on classified research, as a preamble to the Senate's discussion on the issue at today's meeting.  
\par 
\par \tab Donald Kennedy, past president of Stanford University, has remarked in his book, }{\i Academic Duty}{
 (Harvard University Press, 1997), "By nature, universities are controversial places.  Their successes and failures draw intense public scrutiny because they really matter."  Kennedy adds, "As our society needs higher education, so higher education need
s public trust.  Thus, we must take the criticism [from the public] seriously, and ask about its origin".  The origin of this criticism, argues Kennedy, "has much to do with our internal failure to come to grips with responsibility in the university.  Hav
ing been given a generous dose of academic freedom, we haven't taken care of the other side of the bargain\u8230\'c9
If we can clarify our perception of duty and gain public acceptance of it, we will have fulfilled an important obligation to society that nurtures us.  That obligation constitutes the highest institutional form of academic duty".
\par 
\par \tab Kennedy\rquote s remarks are }{\i aprop\u243\'97s}{ in this moment in which I call attention to the academic duty of the ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate.  Surely we concur with Kennedy in his claim that "The very heart of the institution\rquote 
s academic duty to society is the work of its faculty".  It is the work of the faculty that is central to garnering the public trust.  We should therefore take notice when a member of the public such as local columnist Dan O'Neill writes (}{\i 
Fairbanks Daily News-Miner}{, Saturday, October 20, 2001) with reference to prospective classified research at ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ, "A culture of secrecy may be intrinsic to military research, but it is anathema to a university".
\par 
\par \tab O'Neill's statement signals a public criticism as the work of ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ faculty meets with public scrutiny.  Properly engaged, such criticism ought to reinforce our need to "clarify our perception of our duty", specifically our duty }{\i to society}{
, as we debate the 
issue of conducting classified research at ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ.  Whatever the policy recommendation forwarded in due course by the ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate, this recommendation must be advanced as part of our clarification of our academic duty and with a view to gaining a publ
i
c acceptance of our perception of that duty.  Kennedy observes that "it is much easier to distrust an institution whose operations and purposes are obscure", and surely this provides advance warning as we here at ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ take up the question of classified res
earch that may inevitably entail "a culture of secrecy" which O'Neill says is "anathema to a university".
\par 
\par \tab It is essential that we get the right policy in place here at ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ.  The levels of secrecy that characterize classified research are, in my view, all 
the more formidable when related to what Kennedy (with reference to comments made by the German physicist Max Planck) calls "an implacable law of the economics of knowledge":
\par 
\par Each incremental unit of new knowledge costs more that the last.  It\rquote s not hard 
to explain.  We tend to answer the easier questions first; the answers to those then suggest harder questions.  Furthermore, we develop new tools in the course of our investigations and then apply them to subsequent work.  For a constant increment of gain
 at the frontier we thus find ourselves allocating more and more resources.
\par 
\par \tab As the ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate today formally initiates our discussion with a view to recommending a policy on classified research, I urge Senators to do so with all the requisite seri
ousness that this question poses for our academic duty to society and to the public trust we must ever strive to sustain.  And, I especially urge Senators to bear in mind that "implacable law of the economics of knowledge" which is perhaps even more germa
ne to the conduct of classified research.  
\par 
\par -----------------
\par 
\par In response to a question from Mitch Roth, Swazo read the relevant passage from the policy.  Peter McRoy asked why the Senate was having this discussion if there is already a policy.  Swazo ans
wered that although there is a policy there is no regulation promulgated that clarifies any conditions under which classified and proprietary research are to occur.  This leaves the Provost to ad hoc decisions in the event the university is asked to parti
c
ipate in such research, as has happened in the request from the Geophysical Institute to accept classified research projects.  Swazo said the discussion by the faculty senate is important since the faculty should be contributing a policy and/or regulation
 
recommendation and not have only the Provost or Senate President making decisions about these matters on an ad hoc basis.  McRoy asked what Swazo expected this discussion to produce.  Swazo answered that our discussion should lead us in one of two directi
o
ns:  one is that we propose a revision to the current BOR policy that allows classified and proprietary research; the other is that we leave the policy statement as is but make a recommendation as to what the university regulation should say in governing 
the way in which classified and proprietary research should occur.
\par 
\par Provost Reichardt remarked that he lacked any explicit guidance in the GI request and decided he would authorize the proposed project as an experiment from which we could learn before commi
tting to more classified research opportunities.  He suggested senators be provided a copy of the memorandum he has provided GI director Roger Smith outlining the criteria for the GI project.
\par 
\par Ron Illingworth remarked that he didn't see that the Senate cou
ld offer any meaningful comment in the present discussion without further information, such as what are policies like at other institutions.  Swazo responded that the discussion is designed to assist the Faculty Affairs Committee in working through the pe
r
tinent issues and that the discussion today surely can engage the general issues outlined in the discussion guideline.  Swazo added that the specifics related to the projects planned by the Geophysical Institute would be engaged at the Senate's December m
e
eting.  Vice Provost for Research Ted DeLaca is also scheduled to discuss the issue from his administrative perspective, especially as this relates also to the matter of international transfer of technology and the licensing associated with that.  Roger S
m
ith will also speak at the December meeting.  The Senate will continue its discussion of this issue for several meetings.  We should also have some guest lectures, pro and con on the issue of classified research to inform us how other institutions have de
alt with the issue.
\par 
\par Charlie Dexter commented that any question about doing classified research should probably consider the costs and benefits as they relate to the university's mission, since the university surely is a relevant stakeholder, even as the pu
blic at large is a relevant stakeholder.
\par 
\par Hajo Eicken remarked that research scientists are also relevant stakeholders and that, in his opinion, so long as any proposed research is legal, university scientists should be able to engage in whatever research 
they wish, including classified research.  Swazo noted that there are many research universities that prohibit classified research, such as Indiana University at Bloomington, which does not permit faculty to solicit or to accept classified research contra
c
ts.  Indiana also distinguishes between research performed in university facilities and research carried out by faculty as private consultants separate from their university appointments.  The same issue is relevant for discussion about classified researc
h
 at ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ.  Swazo added further that classified research raises the additional question of how a research workload that includes classified research relates to tenure/promotion and post-tenure review, since such work will not be publishable and thus does no
t provide opportunity for peer review in these contexts.  Abel Bult agreed, noting that he is standing for tenure this year and was concerned about a prospect of participating in classified research recently.
\par 
\par The discussion on classified research ended ear
ly due to time constraints on the agenda.  Some answers to the question under discussion of who are the relevant stakeholders included--faculty members as researchers, the university as a whole as it applies to its mission and goals, the public, and the l
egislature, since they give us the money and have a lot to say about what we do.
\par 
\par 
\par VII\tab Committee Reports 
\par 
\par \tab A.\tab Curricular Affairs - R. Illingworth
\par 
\par A report was attached to the agenda. 
\par 
\par 
\par \tab B.\tab Faculty Affairs - P. McRoy
\par 
\par A report was attached to the agenda. 
\par 
\par 
\par \tab C.\tab Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee \endash  H. Eicken
\par 
\par A report was attached to the agenda. 
\par 
\par 
\par \tab D.\tab Core Review - J. Brown
\par 
\par No report was available.
\par 
\par 
\par \tab E.\tab Curriculum Review - P. Pinney
\par 
\par No report was available.  
\par 
\par 
\par \tab F.\tab Developmental Studies - J. Weber
\par 
\par The following report was distributed as a handout. 
\par 
\par Minutes of the Developmental Studies Committee
\par October 25, 2001, 1:00-2:00 p.m.,  Chancellor's Conference Room
\par 
\par Present:  Barbara Adams, Nancy Ayagarak, Patty Baldwin, John Bruder, Rich Carr, John Creed, Cindy Hardy, Marjie Illingworth, Ron Illingworth, Wanda Martin, Joe Mason, Greg Owens, Jane Weber, Bob Medinger
\par 
\par The Committee met and discussed the following items:
\par 
\par Developmental Math proposals to CRA:
\par 
\par Jane Weber and John Bruder have drafted memos to Bernice Joseph, the new Dean of CRA, detailing the need for more DEVM faculty on the ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ campus and the need to maintain consistent funding for the Math Hotline.
\par 
\par Initiatives:
\par 
\par Wanda Martin reported that a FY 04 initiative has been drafted to address "phase 2" of the Student Learning Center FY03 initiative  (now referred to as the "Learning Assistance Center").  While funding for the FY03 initiative is still not set in
 concrete, we are moving forward on the assumption that the FY03 funds will be designated for planning.  The FY04 initiative addresses implementation of the plan, and allows for further initiatives to meet future needs.
\par 
\par Ron Illingworth reported that he is
 also sending forward a proposal requesting faculty for distance delivery classes, including faculty development, mentoring, and increased audio time.  The initiative does not specify location, so that the faculty positions can be created at the locations
 where they're most needed.
\par 
\par Developmental Programs Assessment:
\par 
\par The committee is preparing for the independent assessment of developmental programs to be coordinated by Maynard Perkins and to begin in the spring semester.  Perkins has requested that we com
e up with some questions we would like the assessment to address so that he can choose outside reviewers and guide them in setting up the assessment process.
\par 
\par We drafted a list of questions covering a range of issues from the definition of success in the d
evelopmental classroom, to the effects of our being spread out in many locations.  These draft questions are being circulated among committee members for further additions and refinement before they are submitted to Perkins.
\par 
\par We also discussed the logistics of getting the reviewers to our campuses.  We will encourage Perkins to look for reviewers who are familiar with geographically distant multi-campus institutions.
\par 
\par COMPASS:
\par 
\par Wanda Martin reported, excitedly, on a new facet of COMPASS, "e-Write."  This is
 a web-based program that allows students to submit a writing sample and have it evaluated electronically.  It is still being tested by ACT, but once it arrives, it should supply a missing piece in placement testing in English.  Wanda is also writing an i
nitiative to have all COMPASS and ASSET site licenses funded under one source.
\par 
\par Early Warning:
\par 
\par The Early Warning program has developed four reports that any program can run: student low-grade reports, new admits with test scores, non-returning and probatio
n students, and Dean's and Chancellor's list students.   These reports should help departments keep in touch with their majors who are in trouble and with those who have earned praise.
\par 
\par Last spring, faculty in the Early Warning program contacted non-returning students to determine if there were patterns that we could detect early.  They determined that there were no significant patterns that held for groups of students.
\par 
\par The next meeting will be Thursday, November 29, 1pm.
\par 
\par 
\par \tab G.\tab Faculty Appeals & Oversight - J. Moessner
\par 
\par A report was attached to the agenda. 
\par 
\par 
\par \page \tab H.\tab Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement \endash  
\par }\pard \fi720\li720\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {D. McLean-Nelson
\par }\pard \widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {
\par A report was attached to the agenda. 
\par 
\par 
\par VIII\tab Public Comments/Questions - none
\par 
\par 
\par IX\tab Members' Comments/Questions - 
\par 
\par Mitch Roth asked about the approval of a trial course reviewed by the Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee.  
\par 
\par 
\par X\tab Adjournment
\par 
\par }\pard\plain \s19\fi-720\li720\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 \f12\lang1033\cgrid {\f7 \tab The meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
\par }\pard \s19\fi-1800\li1800\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1800\itap0 {\f7 
\par }\pard \s19\fi-720\li720\widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\f7 \tab Tapes of this Faculty Senate meeting are in the Governance 
\par \tab Office, 312 Signers' Hall if anyone wishes to listen to the 
\par \tab complete tapes. 
\par 
\par \tab Submitted by Sheri Layral, Faculty Senate Secretary.
\par }\pard\plain \widctlpar\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f7\lang1033\cgrid {
\par 
\par 
\par }}