ࡱ> s Gjbjb &kkG],,,,, 8,p@(hhhhhhh-//////, n[hhhhh[p hh@p p p hhh-h-p rp  -< ,, %MINUTES Ӱ FACULTY SENATE MEETING #115 MONDAY, April 7, 2003 Wood Center Carol Brown Ballroom I The meeting was called to order by President Chukwu at 1:05 p.m. A. ROLL CALL Members Present: Members Absent: Barnhardt, C. Barnes, D. Berman, G. Bueler, E. Box, M. Gradinger, R. Bruder, J. Newberry, R. Bult-Ito, A. Zhang, S. Chukwu, G. Curda, L. Dinstel, R. OTHERS PRESENT: Duffy, L. Abramovicz, K. Gladden, J. Anger, D. Goering, G. Chigubu, M. Hannigan, M. Collins, J. Holton, G. Hermann, M. Illingworth, R. Joseph, J. Leguard, J. Kilpatrick, D.J. Luick, B. (L. Jackson-Bayles) Layer, P. Ma, Z. Layral, S. McBeath, J. Lind, M. McCarthy, P. Milner, L. McRoy, P. Pippenger, M. Morrison, J. Porter, D. Odess, D. Read, C. Patil, S. Robinson, T. Pinney, P. Samson, M. Schneider, W. (J. Anderson) Schamel, D. Simmons, B. Schink, C. Weber, J. Sparks, C. Whiteledge, T. Stone, K. Zilberkant, E. Wickmann, H. Wisen, C. NON-VOTING MEMBERS PRESENT: NON-VOTING MEMBERS ABSENT: Miller, D. (B. Anderson)-President, ASӰ Joseph, B. - Dean, CRA Ben Andrews - Graduate Student, GSO Woodall, D. - Dean, CSEM Ledlow, L. - President, ӰSC Slominski, R. - Registrar B. The minutes to Meeting #114 (March 5, 2003) were approved as distributed via e-mail. C. The agenda was approved as distributed via e-mail. II Status of Chancellor's Office Actions A. Motions approved: 1. Motion to approve a Certificate and A.A.S. in Educator: Para-Professional. 2. Motion to amend the transfer guidelines for Ӱ core curriculum courses. 3. Motion to approve adding ENGL 211 or 213 (or permission of instructor) as a prerequisite for all Writing Intensive courses. 4. Motion to approve the Unit Criteria for the Cooperative Extension Service. B. Motions pending: none III Comments from Chancellor, Marshall Lind - Chancellor Lind thanked Eduard Zilberkant and members of the committee for their work on the evaluation of the Provost. They have submitted their report to him and he now will need to schedule a meeting with the Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee. It is a good process and seems to be working. Chancellor Lind apologized to those inconvenienced by activities taking place on West Ridge. There are a number of challenges and problems that we have created by starting three projects at the same time. He encouraged those with suggestions on how we can better deal with the situation to please expressed those to him and the committee. There is opportunity to attend a forum at the GI to offer any suggestions. The University is concerned about the activities of the legislature at this point in reference to the budget. There have been articles in the paper regarding the action of the House Finance Committee. They have chosen to not include the increased amount proposed by the Governor. It is a significant amount of money that is critical to our needs. Please keep an eye on it and let your legislators know your thoughts. The President is coming out with a news release regarding some of the implications of that action. We will be doing a number of things in terms of getting the message to the legislature over the next few weeks. It's real important to emphasize the importance of maintaining the momentum. The numbers for enrollment for next year look good based on what we are seeing on the applications and acceptances. We are also in the process of dealing with the budget. There are some challenges ahead, including our share of the benefits costs, increased costs with risk management, and other commitments that we have made. We have to tighten things up a bit. The Chancellor indicated that he would take any questions on the budget or parking on West Ridge. Peter McRoy asked about Space Planning and Management (SPAM) and the recently approved guidelines and procedures about space. He asked everyone to check the web site. One of the critical issues is the statement that the university owns all space on campus. These guidelines and procedures never came to the Senate. The Chancellor will work with the Senate leadership to resolve this issue. Larry Duffy asked about the threat to the Ӱn Scholars Program. Chancellor Lind stated that the numbers have gone up and we anticipate an increase for next fall. However, we are out of money from the Natural Resource Fund. We estimate that the three universities will have to contribute an excess of $200,000 to support that program. If we do not continue the program after this next class comes in, that would mean we would not make scholarships available to those graduating after the class of 2003. Whether Ӱ would continue to offer it has not been discussed. There will be over 200 students receiving scholarships at Ӱ in the fall. For the four years together there is probably 350 or more. That gets pretty expensive and the Chancellor is not sure how we can afford to continue it on our own. Comments from Provost, Paul Reichardt - The Provost was not able to attend. Guest Speaker - Kim Stone, International Programs Godwin Chukwu invited the new International student advisor to address the Senate about the latest reporting requirements. Kim Stone spoke about the Student Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) and the collection of data for our international students. The SEVIS is an internet-based system that allows schools and the Immigration & Naturalization Service (INS) to exchange data on the visa status of international students and exchange visitors (F and J categories). This information is transmitted electronically throughout the student's academic career. U.S. embassies, consulates and other U.S. government agencies will have access to this information. Impacts on Ӱ are that the timelines are enforced and it is a continuous, real-time reporting which eliminates the discretion or ability to fix little mistakes. There are over 300 students and scholars from countries all over the world at Ӱ. The graduate students provide significant support in teaching and research on campus. The tuition provides funds for the university and the students contribute significant economic benefit to the community. The foreign students add diversity to the campus community and provide one of the first opportunities that many Ӱ students have for close and extensive contact with foreigners. Consequences to Ӱ if students fall out of status include disruption of programs, teaching, and research. This could lead to probation with the possible loss of ability to accept international students and scholars. Reasons for reinstatement should be for reasons out of the students control. Bad grades are within the control of the student. To remain in status international students must maintain a "full course of study" (12 undergraduate credits; 9 graduate credits) while making "normal progress" toward completing a course of study. Normal progress is the amount of time that an average student would need to complete a similar program in the same discipline. Jenifer McBeath asked which visa it impacts the most, the J or F visa? Kim Stone indicated that it impacts the F-1 student the most. There have not been changes that impact the J visa. Abel Bult-Ito asked about receiving status reports on the application of international students. She indicated that questions applicant status can be addressed to her at 474-7583 or fnkss@uaf.edu. IV Rural Campus Comments Godwin Chukwu introduced the faculty members with him in Bethel. They included Linda Curda, Lucy Jackson-Bayles, Mary Sampson, and Mercy Chigubu and Christy Schink. John Bruder spoke about a two-way videoconference they had that morning with Chancellor Lind. It worked better than the audioconference at this meeting. Linda Curda spoke about Godwin Chukwu's attendance in Bethel and this provides an opportunity for faculty exchange of ideas. Joy Morrison indicated that she would be coming out to Bethel and Dillingham later in April. Christy Schink spoke about course approvals and the difficulty in getting adjunct faculty members approved. There is a high turnover in adjunct faculty. Maybe the Senate can look at the requirement that faculty teaching the 100 & 200 level course must have a masters degrees. Godwin Chukwu indicated that he had a meeting with Robert Medinger, the director of the Kuskokwim Campus. He will be reporting about his meeting and the trip to Bethel in the next Senate Newsletter. Public Comments/Questions - Hank Wickmann, Chair of AIS Department, and chair of the SOM Promotion/Tenure committee urged the Senate not to pass the SOM unit criteria. Hank Wickmann provided a handout of his comments. D.J. Kilpatrick, Assistant Professor of Accounting quoted from a memo from the Associate Dean to the faculty, "The document is far from perfect." Her concerns are among the shortcomings of the document. It does not tie the promotion/tenure requirements to workload agreements. The accounting program has separate accreditation standards which are not addressed. She encouraged the Senate not to pass the criteria as they currently stand. It is a flawed document. Ken Abramovicz, Associate Professor of Accounting asked the Senate to consider rejecting the criteria and sending it back for the proper processes and procedures to be followed. He agrees that the unit criteria are ambiguous and they have changed significantly after being passed by the SOM Promotion & Tenure Committee. The SOM mission statement was not used to drive these unit criteria. There is a major difference between Accounting, Business Administration, and Economics. Accounting is separately accredited. Mark Hermann, Professor of Economics indicated that David Porter had to go to class; however, he is a strong supporter of the unit criteria. Mark Hermann indicated that the process was very transparent. There were numerous drafts and everyone voted on it. Not everyone is happy with it. Most of the divisiveness comes from the research criteria. It is a compromise. He urged the Faculty Senate vote for it. The SOM has to move on. They need to get the unit criteria passed. Charlie Sparks, Associate Professor of Accounting had some process concerns. The document is not responsive to the specialized accreditation concerns. There are new standards with respect to professional interactions and recent relevant professional experience. This brings academics closer to professional practice. This consideration is absent in the document. The unit criteria has been rushed through and has errors. It needs to be sent back. Mike Pippenger, Associate Professor of Economics urged the approval of the unit criteria. The process started three years ago. The research criteria was approved last fall. It is the only bone of contention throughout all the discussion. They have asked AIS to provide evidence of different research expectations. He urged the Senate to approve the document. Jim Collins, Dean of SOM did approve the SOM unit criteria. This is a process that has gone on over three long years. This has been a debate about the role of research within the school and the perceived existence of different research expectations across departments. He has asked accounting to provide evidence that differences do exist at other schools of management. No evidence has been brought forward. The accounting faculty have not brought forward alternative criteria. As a final determination the faculty did vote on this and the majority of the faculty did concur with these criteria. Tom Robinson, Professor of Accounting also serves on the Faculty Development, Assessment, and Improvement Committee. One thing they have heard is that individual departments in CLA have their own criteria. We've been told that we can't do it. The accounting department is separately accredited. We are asked to serve the profession and have recent relevant experience. That type of content is absent from this document. V Governance Reports A. President-Elect's Comments - P. Pinney Pete Pinney had no comments. B. President's Comments - G. Chukwu Godwin Chukwu indicated that it was good to receive faculty comments. C. Staff Council - L. Ledlow Due to the length of public comments, Larry Ledlow had to leave. However, he provided the following written comments. From: Larry Ledlow, ӰSC President Re: ӰSC President's Report, 04/03 UA Budget The most pressing issue impacting all of us at the University of Ӱ is a huge shortfall in the budget, if the House Finance Subcommittee is allowed to go unchallenged in Juneau. The proposal is to fund UA at $16 million below the UA FY04 budget request and $2.4 million below UA's FY03 level! The House proposal does not even pay for fixed-cost increases to maintain existing programs. The decrement proposed in the subcommittee combined with the Universitys mandatory salary policy, contract obligations, operating costs for new facilities, and inflationary increases UA would begin FY04 with a decrement of $12.3 million. Governor Murkowski recommended a $10.4 million increase in the UA budget this year, which should be sufficient to maintain the momentum and meet the basic fixed costs. The governor sees the UA as essential to the economic growth and vitality of the state. However, House Republicans apparently have not yet understood this message. The impact of the House Finance Subcommittee could be severe, since the University cannot absorb over $12 million. Programs (and staff) will be reduced out of necessity. Details of the issues can be found at the UA website. See:  HYPERLINK "http://www.alaska.edu/state/archives/2003/2003press/ACalltoArms1.html" http://www.alaska.edu/state/archives/2003/2003press/ACalltoArms1.html Staff Council representatives should inform their constituents and advise them immediately to contact their legislators in Juneau to state their views on the value of the University to the state and to offer opinions about the significant funding shortfall. President-elect Rory ONeill and I will travel to Juneau during 14-15th April along with other Staff Alliance members. We will meet with our legislators in person. Construction and Parking on West Ridge Major construction projects commenced on West Ridge in late March, and they have caused a disruption in parking and access to the Museum, Irving, ONeill, Elvey, IARC, and Arctic Health buildings. Koyukuk Drive will be closed until at least October, and several hundred parking spaces have been displaced. A new shuttle service was implemented between West Ridge and the Nenana parking lot, where late-arriving employees and students are forced to park. The full impact of the parking and circulation disruption will probably not be felt until next winter, when access to parking spaces with headbolts will be extremely limited. Information distribution on the new arrangements has been very effective. Unit 5 Alternate Gary Newman, who maintains a Staff Council web page for the Geophysical Institute, has provided invaluable service by keeping construction information current. See:  HYPERLINK "http://www.gi.alaska.edu/staffcouncil/westridge-construction.htm" http://www.gi.alaska.edu/staffcouncil/westridge-construction.htm Staff Development Day Under the auspices of Ӱ Human Resources, training and development coordinator Susan Miller has been leading the organization of Ӱ Staff Development Day. The event is planned for April 30th. Workshops covering various topics such as Office Communications and Health and Wellness will be featured. Unfortunately, my call to Staff Council members to help plan the event went unanswered. Nevertheless, Staff Council can still help spread the word. According to Susan, the plans so far are as follows: Keynote speaker is Lynne Curry-Swan of the Growth Company in Anchorage. She has spoken and given workshops through out the U.S. We have had a good response to the online survey about which workshops employees would like to have. As of today, we have had almost 200 responses. Ӱ 20% wanted Office Communications. Comments about this topic: positive attitude and dealing with those who don't have one, conflict in the workplace, humor in the workplace, valuing staff, customer service. The next closest topic, almost at 20%, was Health and Wellness. Comments: stress management, balancing work and family. Next was Basics of Investing at close to 20%. Professional Image at about 15% and Resume & Interview Skills about 15%. I have reserved four different spaces for workshops, so the most we can offer is four. The smallest space is the MCR [about 20 -25 people]. The Library Media Classroom holds 50. Wood Center DE and EF will hold about 40 each, maybe more. Door prizes attained so far include dinner at Westmark Bear and Seal Restaurant, Overnight stay at the Westmark, trip for 2 on the Discovery Riverboat, trip for 2 to El Dorado Gold Mine, season pass to the Wood Center Pub wine/beer tasting. If you know of a business that might be willing to donate a service or product, please let me know and I will send them a letter, or contact them yourself, especially if it is a place where you do business. Susan will attend the Staff Council meeting on 4/16 and will talk about Staff Development Day, and can give out flyers listing the specific workshops. Human Resources will have an online registration form set up for the workshops. D. ASӰ - Brodie Anderson Brodie Anderson, Vice President of ASӰ, attended for Derek Miller who is out of town. On April 12 a leadership summit will be held. It has been developed by the students for the students. The idea is to centralize and unify some of the student leaders and to develop a student leadership vision that we can carry on for the next few year directly related to student leadership and the opportunities that are available to them. It will include an open forum workshop. ASӰ will be conducting elections for President, Vice-President and Senators on April 14-15. This will be the second on-line election. At the end of the semester ASӰ is offering extended hours. They will be offering coffee and limited printing for papers and reports. They also provide a tutoring service. On a statewide level, Derek Miller has been involved in increasing the pay scale for student assistant jobs. On Friday there was a Fax campaign and they sent out 89 faxes to the legislators, especially the interior delegation. They are also implementing a post card campaign. On Sunday they will pass a resolution opposing the Patriot Act. They have some concerns about some of the things that are implemented in the act in regards to students privacy and other issues. They are also moving to implement a recycling glass program in the fall. Finally, during the election on April 14-15 there will possibly be a referendum to increase the student fees to $35. With the $5 increase they will implement a Concert Board. Jane Weber asked about tutoring. Brodie Anderson indicated that ASӰ will be providing tutoring service until the last week of class. They will be paying the entire tutoring fee. Ben Andrews - GSO Ben Andrews indicated that the GSO is investigating a graduate student bill of rights and responsibilities. Some complaints of students is that they have far too little contact with advisors. They should expect one hour a week with their advisory. Some student had complaints about getting thesis return on a timely basis. Another area of interest they are investigating is health insurance. They have spoken with the director of the health center. They are interested in looking for something more in the nature of an employee policy. Any comments can be email to him at : ftbja@uaf.edu. E. Faculty Liaison - E. Kopacz Eva Kopacz spoke about the budget. Sitting in the statewide office there has been a lot of discussion among the people advocating in Juneau. This is not a typical year. There is a real concern about the budget and feeling a need for a ground swell of expression of opinion by people about the budget. They are asking faculty to send information to the legislature. K-12 is being pitted against the university in terms of not funding the university until K-12 issues are addressed. She encourage everyone to write their legislator. There has been a lot of discussion on the Patriot Act. At the UAA campus last Friday there were two legal experts who debated the topic and tried to clarify what the implications of the act are. Larry Duffy asked what the Statewide position on the comments made about the faculty involved in the negotiations on the resolution in the Senate. She has heard discussions at other campuses but not at statewide. Jenifer McBeath asked which budget we should be supporting. The Chancellor spoke about the different budget requests from the Board of Regents', the governor, and the flat funding proposal. Also under discussion is the funding from AST of $2.5 million. VI New Business A. Nomination for President-Elect & Election Peter McRoy moved that nominations be closed. The election of Abel Bult-Ito by affirmation passed without objection. RESOLUTION: ========= BE IT RESOLVED, That the Ӱ Faculty Senate ratifies the election of Abel Bult-Ito as President-Elect of the Senate for the year 2003-2004 by affirmation. B. Resolution for Outstanding Senator of the Year Award, submitted by OSYA Screening Committee Pete Pinney spoke about the resolution of Ron Illingworth as Outstanding Senator of the Year and his continued involvement with the Senate throughout the years. The resolution passed unanimously. RESOLUTION: ========= WHEREAS, Ron Illingworth has served the Ӱ Faculty Senate in numerous capacities, often in leadership roles, since 1988, and WHEREAS, Ron Illingworth, in service to the Faculty Senate, has made truly outstanding contributions to improving the academic quality of the university, and WHEREAS, Ron Illingworth has worked tirelessly for ALL Ӱ students, both urban and rural, through his Faculty Senate representation, and WHEREAS, Ron Illingworth has helped to make the Ӱ Faculty Senate a critical element in the retention of students throughout Ӱ, and WHEREAS, Ron Illingworth has made major contributions to students' welfare, to faculty's ability to carry out their duties and responsibilities, and to the betterment of Ӱ as an institution of higher education, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Ӱ Faculty Senate recognize Ron Illingworth as Outstanding Senator of the Year for Academic Year 2002-2003. *** C. Motion on Faculty Mentoring, submitted by Faculty Development, Assessment, and Improvement Abel Bult-Ito indicated that this would put into effect a framework for faculty mentoring. Too many untenured or new faculty do not get very good mentoring and this motion will remedy that situation. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION: ====== The Ӱ Faculty Senate, upon recommendation of the Faculty Development Assessment, and Improvement Committee, moves to approve the following Faculty Mentoring Program Policy: FACULTY MENTORING PROGRAM POLICY: The Provost, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Faculty Development, and the Faculty Development Assessment, and Improvement Committee, will establish and implement a comprehensive and effective Faculty Mentoring Program for new/untenured faculty members no later than by the fall 2003 semester. EFFECTIVE: Immediately RATIONALE: This Faculty Mentoring Program Policy will provide a framework for effective mentoring of new/untenured tenure-track faculty members. Currently, the mentoring of new/untenured faculty members is variable, from non-existent to effective. Too many new/untenured faculty members appear to receive inadequate mentoring, because guidelines and expectations for mentoring are not well developed. This policy remedies this situation. * GUIDELINES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FACULTY MENTORING PROGRAM POLICY: These guidelines are to be evaluated periodically for effectiveness by the Provost, the Director of the Office of Faculty Development, and the Faculty Development Assessment, and Improvement Committee, and adjusted whenever necessary: 1. New/untenured faculty members will be assigned (a) mentor(s) by their dean/director during their first semester or as soon as possible thereafter. 2. The Office of Faculty Development hosts a luncheon or other type of gathering for new/untenured faculty and their assigned mentors each fall semester. Deans/directors are to strongly encourage attendance at this meeting. Guidelines and expectations for mentoring are discussed then. A Handbook on Mentoring is given to each new/untenured faculty member. 3. In addition to the fall semester activities, deans/directors identify senior faculty volunteer mentors who will be given Service credit on their Workloads to meet at regular intervals with a small group of new/untenured faculty in the spring semester. Small groups of new/untenured faculty will be assigned to each of these mentors depending on their discipline. Faculty members are encouraged to seek out their mentor(s) of choice. 4. A template of the Annual Activities Report is added to the Orientation Kit for new/untenured faculty members so they know what to expect at the end of the year. 5. The senior mentors have examples of Annual Activities Reports and Fourth Year Reviews to show to their groups of new/untenured faculty members. 6. Both mentors and mentees report on their meetings in their Annual Activities Report. A section is added to the online Annual Activities Report template for this information. Also a section be included in the Narrative about mentoring meetings. 7. A training workshop is offered in fall for all mentors. 8. The individual and/or group mentor(s) assist(s) the new/untenured faculty members with preparation of the Annual Activities Report up to the fourth year review. 9. At the dean/director level, a list of new/untenured faculty members and their mentors is maintained. 10. Untenured faculty members are encouraged to maintain an effective mentoring relationship through their tenure and promotion review. *** D. Motion on Evaluation of Administrators for Group B, submitted by Faculty Appeals & Oversight Paul Layer stated that in 2001 the Senate passed a motion to review administrators. For the ease of working they divided administrators into two groups. The "A" list was deans and the "B" list was mostly directors. Since that implementation only deans have been reviewed. No director has been reviewed. This motion specifies a time line for review of directors and a streamline process to implement this review using the Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee. Jenifer McBeath requested an amendment to add the Director of the Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station to the list. The amendment was approved without objection. The motion as amended passed unanimously. MOTION: ====== The Ӱ Faculty Senate moves to amend the administrator review guidelines (passed at Meeting #99, February 5, 2001) to establish a timeline and process for Group "B" administrators and to add Director of the Museum to the Group "B" list. EFFECTIVE: Immediately RATIONALE: The current administrator evaluation process defined two groups of administrators, Group "A" and Group "B". Group "A" administrators are being reviewed by the established process. However the Group "B" review process was not well defined in the original motion. Under this motion, the process for Group "B" administrators is less involved than for Group "A", and relies on the Faculty Appeals and Oversight committee to run the process. The Director of the Museum is at the same administrative level as other Group "B" administrators but was not included on the original list and should be included in the review process. **** PROCESS FOR EVALUATION OF GROUP "B" ADMINISTRATORS Campus/Program Directors in Group "B" (as listed below) are to be reviewed annually by their immediate Supervisor. On July 1st, Group "B" Directors shall submit a report/evaluation form to their Supervisor on the previous year's activities/accomplishments and include goals for the upcoming year. The performance of the Director under review shall be ranked 'Satisfactory' or 'Unsatisfactory'. On a 4-year cycle the evaluation shall be more extensive. By October 15 the Campus/Program Director being reviewed will submit a vita, position description, brief self-evaluation and past annual evaluations to the Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee (FAOC), who will conduct the review. The FAOC may form a subcommittee or subcommittees of 3 or more faculty from FAOC to conduct the review and report back to the committee as a whole. If appropriate, a staff member from the Campus/Program Director's unit may be added to the subcommittee. The FAOC shall set procedures for soliciting input from all relevant constituencies on- and off- campus including faculty, staff and students based on the Director's performance during the previous three years. This will be accomplished through a standard questionnaire completed anonymously and returned to the Ad Hoc Director Review Committee chair and through interviews with a select sample of faculty, staff, students and relevant others, if appropriate, and may include an interview with the administrator being reviewed. The FAOC will prepare an evaluative summary, and submit its report to the Director's Supervisor by March 1. At a date to be determined by the Supervisor of the Director under review, the Supervisor shall meet in joint conference with the Faculty Appeals & Oversight Committee to share his/her preliminary evaluation of the Director under review. The Supervisor will then complete the review process. Supervisory Administrators may add additional administrators to this review list (for review in the 2007-2008 cycle), with approval from the Faculty Senate. Review Cycle: Every four years beginning with: 2003-2004 Director, Geophysical Institute Director, Interior-Aleutian Campus Director, Institute for Northern Engineering Director, Cooperative Extension Service Director, University of Ӱ Museum 2004-2005 Director, Institute of Arctic Biology Director, Bristol Bay Campus Director, Tanana Valley Campus Director of Fisheries Division, Juneau Director, International Arctic Research Center 2005-2006 Director, Institute of Marine Science Director, Chukchi Campus Director of Library Director, Northwest Campus Program Chairman, Marine Advisory Program 2006-2007 Director, Kuskokwim Campus Director, Fishery Industrial Technology Center, Kodiak Director, Arctic Region Supercomputer Center Director, Agricultural & Forestry Experiment Station *** E. Motion to approve the Unit Criteria for the School of Management, submitted by the Ad Hoc Committee on Unit Criteria Gary Holton spoke about the motion and indicated that he would like to see the criteria adopted. The committee has worked with the SOM dean, associate dean, and the AIS department chair since November. They have undergone a number of editorial revisions. They are much improved from the original criteria. There are two types of issues: content of the criteria and process of approval. References to faculty workload was removed from the document at the request of the committee. Workload issues are handled under Ӱ Policies, Chapter IV, section E, paragraph 4--evaluations for promotion and tenure is based on faculty workload. It is not something that needs to be addressed under unit criteria. Other changes are editorial and the committee worked closely with Colin Read and Hank Wickmann. The other issue of process for approval; current regulations specify that unit criteria should be approved by a majority of the discipline faculty. That is the case here. The question was raised if AIS could later add their own department criteria. Godwin Chukwu indicated that the motion before us is the only one being discussed today. Gary Holton indicated that the regulations are unclear about departments putting forth a proposal after the school has an approved criteria. At this time no such proposal has been forward from the accounting department. Greg Goering spoke strongly in favor of the document. Sending the document back would not result in any change. The research standards are lower than he was required to meet six years ago. Brett Simons stated that there is a need for unit criteria and that they are on the right track. He agreed with Mark Hermann that we should have high standards. The standards set forth in the document are attainable. The majority of the faculty have voted in favor of the criteria. Of the 18 faculty who voted, 13 were in favor and 5 opposed the document. He wouldn't be concerned if the dissention was across the school, however, it comes from one department. That department is unanimous in their dissent of this criteria. That sends a signal to him that the document needs more work. The different departments within the School of Management have value in different ways. Pete Pinney asked about the impact if this was not approved. Greg Goering stated that there would be not impact. Brett Simons said it would be very helpful to have a document as a guideline. As a document it does need more work. Gary Holton said that the push for unit criteria came from the Faculty Senate. The committee has worked with the School of Management closely over the past five months to see these criteria through. These are putting on paper things that are already in practice. Accounting faculty have been given many opportunity to comment on these criteria and have put substantive input into the current document. They have not proposed developing a separate accounting unit criteria. A motion was made to refer the motion on approving the unit criteria for the School of Management back to committee. The motion to refer it back to committee passed with a vote of 14 yes, 5 nays and 2 abstentions. MOTION REFERRED BACK TO COMMITTEE: ============================= The Ӱ Faculty Senate moves to approve the Unit Criteria for the School of Management. EFFECTIVE: Immediately Upon Chancellor Approval RATIONALE: The School of Management (SOM) has developed Unit Criteria which set very specific standards for promotion and tenure. The proposed criteria were submitted by the SOM Dean with approval of a majority of SOM faculty. The Unit Criteria proposal incorporates minor changes in format and wording requested by the committee. The resulting criteria have been found to be consistent with Ӱ guidelines. ** E. Motion on Spousal Hire Policy, submitted by Faculty Affairs Peter McRoy stated this motion came about because currently Ӱ does not have a motion whereby all tenure-track faculty candidates and academic spouse/partners are treated equally across different units. This motion is an attempt to approve a uniform policy and to improve the hires that the university makes in this category. This is only for academic hires. Pete Pinney spoke with Earlina Bowen and she raised a concern about the policy. She felt there are concerns that the hire would be based solely on marital status or relationship and not the qualifications of the spouse/partner. She offers an alternative which would provide vacancy announcements to spouse/partners and encourage them to apply for vacant positions. This becomes a contention with the EEO/AA policies in place at the university. Jane Weber asked about including those up for a retention offer. Abel Bult-Ito indicated that the committee felt that those faculty with a retention offer should be included in this policy. Roxie Dinstel indicated that we can not win with a policy that violates EEO policy. Godwin Chukwu indicated that the Chancellor will seek legal council before approving this policy. He suggested that the committee may want to work closely with Earlina Bowen to make sure there are no more problems. A motion was made to refer it back to committee. The motion to refer it back to committee passed unanimously. MOTION REFERRED BACK TO COMMITTEE: ============================= The Ӱ Faculty Senate, upon recommendation of the Faculty Affairs Committee, moves to approve the following Spouse/Partner Hiring Policy. EFFECTIVE: Immediately RATIONALE: Currently, Ӱ does not have a policy by which all tenure-track faculty candidates and their academic spouse/partner are treated equally across different units. This situation results in ad hoc decisions about hiring of a spouse/partner that vary substantially among units and can be perceived as unfair to the candidate, the spouse/partner, the faculty member seeking a retention offer, or the receiving unit. This Spouse/Partner Hiring Policy will provide guidelines for the hiring of spouses or partners of new tenure-track faculty members or those who seek retention offers. The policy presents clear guidelines for all parties involved and treats all candidates and his/her spouse/partner equally. To be able to hire and retain the best faculty Ӱ also needs to recognize the importance of accommodating dual-career couples. * F. Motion on Classified Research, submitted by Faculty Affairs Peter McRoy indicated this motion was before the Senate a year ago in a different form and was later defeated. A new ad hoc committee was formed and their recommendation were forwarded to Faculty Affairs. Faculty Affairs made some modification and this motion is the result of their deliberation. Pete Pinney indicated that additional documents related to this motion were posted on the Senate web site. Paul McCarthy concerns were with proprietary research. He questioned the 60-day clause and the ability to negotiate any extension. Another concern was not allowing the use of proprietary information for graduate students thesis. Abel Bult-Ito asked about the committee and the number of units. It should be specified. Gary Holton thought that the units were to make nominations and that the Senate would confirm a committee with nine members from those nominations. Ron Illingworth did not feel that he had the expertise to select members. He felt that we should ask each unit to select a member and that it could mean 15 members. For lack of a quorum the motion was postpone until the next meeting. MOTION POSTPONED: =============== The Ӱ Faculty Senate, upon recommendation of the Faculty Affairs Committee and the Ad Hoc Committee on Classified Research, moves to approve a Ӱ Policy on Classified and Proprietary Research as follows. EFFECTIVE: Immediately RATIONALE: BOR Policy P10.07.02 specifies that the university may engage in classified research, subject to approval of the Chancellor, but no procedures or guidelines are in place for faculty review and advice on such contracts. The suggested guidelines provide for oversight and faculty review of classified and proprietary research contracts while honoring ongoing agreements with university constituents. *** VII Committee Reports A. Curricular Affairs - R. Illingworth A report was attached to the agenda. A correction was made to delete Wanda Martin from the members present at the meetings. B. Faculty Affairs - P. McRoy The following reports were distributed as a handout. A resolution will be forwarded to the Administrative Committee on the West Ridge construction activities. Faculty Affairs Meeting Report, March 2003 During March the Faculty Affairs committee of the Faculty Senate held 2 meetings one of which was a special joint meeting with the Ad Hoc committee on Classified Research. The business of these meetings follows. JOINT MEETING FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE and the AD HOC COMMITTEE on CLASSIFIED RESEARCH Wednesday, 12 March 2003 Runcorn Conference Room, NSF, 1:30 PM Faculty Affairs Committee: Classified Research Committee: Peter McRoy, SFOS (Chair) Peter Pinney, TVC (Chair) Abel Bult-Ito, CSEM (Co-chair) Richard Collins, GI Joan Leguard, CLA Diane McLean, OSP Roger Smith, GI Cindy Hardy, CLA Peter McRoy, SFOS Roger Smith, GI Visitor: Frank Williams, ARSC Dan Swift Jane Weber, CRA New Business: Classified/Proprietary Research Policy Pete Pinney, chair of the Ad Hoc committee presented the revised policy document and supporting background white paper to Faculty Affairs. Discussion concerned several principal points including a possible conflict with the United Academics contract, the function, composition and authority of the proposed Oversight Review Committee, and the costs involved in handling classified contracts. To many members of the Ad Hoc committee the ensuing discussion covered ground that had been reviewed many times in previous meetings. This joint meeting concluded the work of the Ad Hoc Committee; Chairman Pinney formally presented the work of his committee to Faculty Affairs for subsequent review and transmittal to the Faculty Senate. Old Business: After the Ad Hoc Committee members departed, the remaining Faculty Affairs Committee members held a short discussion of the draft Spouse Appointment Policy. The group agreed to a final review and vote by email so a motion could be brought to the Senate Administrative Committee agenda. The Committee approved the policy and the motion was sent to the Admin Committee. ------------------------------------- FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE Wednesday, 26 March 2003 Runcorn Conference Room, NSF, 3:00 PM Members present: Peter McRoy, SFOS (Chair) Mark Box, CLA Abel Bult-Ito, CSEM (Co-chair) Joan Leguard, CLA Bret Luick, CRA Jennifer McBeath, SALARM Dan Odess, CLA Shirish Patil, SME Classified Research Policy The committee discussed the policy point by point. Suggestions were made to clarify procedures and guidelines stated in the original draft. The Faculty Research Oversight Committee proposed in the draft policy was primary concern of the group. Additional details were added to specify the size of the committee, the eligible membership pool, length of terms and overall composition. After a long discussion, again somewhat repetitious of that which has occurred in discussion of this policy over the past 2 years, we agreed to add the suggested revisions by email and submit the revised policy to the Administrative Committee for consideration at its next meeting. This was done. Parking, the Master Plan, and West ridge Construction: The numerous complaints to committee members from West Ridge faculty and staff over current and proposed changes in parking and circulation on the West Ridge brought this item to the attention of the committee. Shirish Patil, chair of the Ad Hoc Parking Committee of the Master Planning Committee, explained many of the problems and what was being done to resolve them. Chief concerns of the FA committee members were that the planning for new construction was done apparently without consideration of needs of the faculty staff and students and no preliminary meetings were held to resolve issues before new rules were announced. Furthermore, the parking police have apparently been especially busy in distributing citations to West Ridge people. This increase in citations is apparently a result of the closure of several traditional parking areas for construction resulting in a free-for-all search for parking space. Since the Ӱ parking regulations state that parking is not permitted anywhere unless a sign says so, a rule reminiscent of the former Soviet Union, many people who thought their vehicles were legal were given tickets. Faculty Affairs will continue to address these issues to ameliorate confrontations with construction and administration. West Ridge Cafeteria The schedule of the West Ridge Cafeteria is apparently linked to that of the Commons, which often, causes difficulties for faculty, students and staff who work on a different schedule on West Ridge. Closings of the cafeteria based on student schedules requires West Ridge employees and students to go elsewhere for lunch which has become an increasingly time consuming activity due to the construction problems of the area. This issue will be discussed with Dining Services. Submitted by Peter McRoy, Chair C. Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee M. Murray No report was submitted. D. Core Review - D. Schamel The following report was distributed as a handout. Core Review Committee Meetings 3 & 31 March 2003 Submitted by Douglas Schamel, Chair The Core Review Committee met twice since our last report. The main topic of discussion has been the "Perspectives on the Human Condition". Given the nature of the numerous requests for substitutions for part of the "perspectives", we have been wondering if a broadening of the "perspectives" options might not be appropriate. We discussed the pros and cons of simply allowing 9 credits of Humanities and 9 credits of Social Sciences, in place of the current "perspectives", as well as some more restrictive approaches. At the 31 March meeting, we listened to the comments of several visitors. Drs. Cole and Kleinfeld spoke loudly to the importance of having a central "Core" of courses that form a common body of knowledge shared by all students. We pointed out that any two courses from the "perspectives" can be eliminated by completion of a year of foreign language; thus, there really is no common Core. Clearly, facts and figures (which we currently do not have) would be useful in discussing this point. They also shared a concern that Core courses were intended to be taught by our very best instructors. This practice is not widespread. Dr. McBeath maintained that the faculty decided what the common body of knowledge should be, back in 1990. He questioned our need to re-examine the issue. We felt it is healthy to re-visit the Core after more than a decade; indeed, it is part of the charge of the committee. Dr. Jennings was concerned that the Core Review Committee had not discussed this issue more broadly. We indicated that our plan was to discuss the issue within the committee first, then take the discussion more widely, once we had crystallized a plan. Basically, the visitors to the 31 March meeting criticized the Core Review Committee for doing its job. As much as we appreciate input, we do not appreciate criticism for taking our charge seriously. We will continue to pursue ways and means to improve the Core for Ӱ students. E. Curriculum Review - G. Holton The following report was distributed as a handout. HANDOUT Ӱ FACULTY SENATE MEETING #115 APRIL 7, 2003 Minutes of Curriculum Review Committee Meeting 3/30/2003 Present: Debbie Moses (DEV), Steve Cysewski (CRA), Thomas Riccio (CLA), Gayle Gregory (Registrar's rep.), Gary Holton (chair), Zorana Lazarevic (CSEM), Gang Chen (SME), Gerry Plumley (SFOS) Meeting began at 2:15 p.m. Zorana presented proposals #1-6. These are all fine, but it was suggested that we check with Art regarding the desirability of course repeatability for #4. Steve presented proposals #7-18. Committee discussed issue of dropping courses with justification "no instructor available." Conclusion that this issue beyond purview of committee. Approved #7-17. Committee will ask History if they want #7 to be repeatable. Proposal #18 is a major program revision; committee will ask Carol Gold to present this at its next meeting. Debbie presented proposals #19-22, 58-59. Proposal #19 appears to be a re-submission. This is a new course proposal for JRN 290: "Web Site Design". It was originally submitted with course number 250, then changed to 290. But JRN 250: "Website Design" already exists in 03-04 catalog. Committee will check with Journalism Dept. to determine if #19 is actually a re-submission. Proposal #20 should be stacked with JRN 656--otherwise looks fine. Proposal #21 approved. Proposal #22 is a program revision. This looks fine but will need to be edited to account for changes to proposal #19. Proposal #58 -- should prereq. be JRN 250 or JRN 290? Proposal #59 approved. Meeting adjourned at 2:25 p.m. Summary: proposals approved: 1-17, 20-22, 58-59 proposals deferred: 18, 19 Next scheduled committee meetings: Monday, April 14, 2:15-3:15 Monday, April 21, 2:15-3:15 Monday, April 28, 2:15-3:15 Tentative agenda for April 14 meeting proposals #31-40 proposal #26 (guest: Delena Norris-Tull) F. Developmental Studies - J. Weber The following report was distributed as a handout. Minutes of The Developmental Studies Committee April 3, 2003, 2-3:30pm Chancellors Conference Room Present: Judy Atkinson, Patty Baldwin, John Bruder, Rich Carr, John Creed, Kat Gustafson, Cindy Hardy, Marjie Illingworth, Ron Illingworth, Wanda Martin, Joe Mason, Mary Matthews, Debbie Moses, Jane Weber. The Developmental Studies Committee met and decided on the following items: Developmental Education Department--In a rare attempt at parliamentary process, the committee moved, seconded, and voted unanimously to adopt the recommendations of the Developmental Studies Assessment team, as revised, amended, and further developed by the committee as a whole. These recommendations will form the basis of a plan for the creation of a Developmental Education Department, to be in place by Fall Semester 2003. The committee is forwarding the recommendations with a cover letter indicating plans for an interim departmental structure to Jake Poole, TVC, Bernice Joseph, CRA, Provost Reichardt, and Chancellor Lind. Future role of the committee--The committee also voted to transfer its current oversight of the Developmental Studies program to the Developmental Education Department, effective Fall 2003. The committee will continue in an advisory and curricular review role. Mandatory Placement--The committee also addressed a motion from the Curricular Affairs committee which strengthened the language of a motion which was forwarded to them from the Developmental Studies committee. After some discussion and some friendly amendments, the motion to implement mandatory placement was passed and sent back to the Curricular Affairs committee which will bring it to the Senate as a jointly sponsored motion. The next meeting will take place during the CRA face-to-face meeting in May. G. Faculty Appeals & Oversight - P. Layer No report was given. H. Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement A. Bult-Ito A report was attached to the agenda. I. Ad Hoc Committee on Unit Criteria - G. Holton No report was given. IX Members' Comments/Questions Joy Morrison spoke about the problems of the audio conference. Abel Bult-Ito asked about a report that was suppose to go to the Faculty Affairs committee. Pete Pinney indicated that he would get it to them. X Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m. Tapes of this Faculty Senate meeting are in the Governance Office, 312 Signers' Hall if anyone wishes to listen to the complete tapes. Submitted by Sheri Layral, Faculty Senate Secretary. `3 566N:O:::::::@;@@@@@@RI]]&__Pamadkzloodyey}&ڡۡNjsЧCƩة~HtXEG CJOJQJ6B*jOJQJU 0JOJQJjOJQJUjOJQJU >*OJQJ5;OJQJA(>_`+Jfw$Dc  (>_`+Jfw$Dc8Pl 23k% & , O } + Y  jkAB*+QRSF G !!!d8Pl 23k% &   >      , O } + Y  jkABL*+QRSF G !!!!!""*#+#$$% %0!!!""*#+#$$% %%%% & &&&((**,,\.].//,2-233333344<4=4>4444444455555588::::<<<9@:@@@@BBB\]DE|}F %%%% & &&&((**,,\.].//,2-233333344<40<4=4>4444444455555588::::<<<9@:@@@@@BBBBcCDEFGjHkHRISITIpIqILKMKKKLLLLMMhh  & Fh BBcCDEFGjHkHRISITIpIqILKMKKKLLLLMpWqW,X-XZZ%Z%_&_PaQapp~ ~=~v~~~~~vwT˓̓;<_}~ %&eޕ-g«NOm'    l    `6Title $CJ OJPJQJHS`HBody Text Indent 3 OJPJQJ.U`. Hyperlink >*B*phG!!!!    ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!% &/6@HPV\bdltzܰ="G[+ < ? b 'U"G  %<4@MWc\laflms7};jjisG!Bޕ(GN666:<<<GXXt~ ',<@QW^eqxJR  """"""""$$b*k*22>6E6X9]9992:8:;;BBCCeezz~~)1@F\bI#8CXbt -7GO_k{'1229<Zy}~36VZb"b"## # #=#>#######"$#$$$&&''''*(+(((**++,,,,R.R.EEpSpS,T,TVVVV%V%V%[%[P]P]llzzzzvv;; ĖtUUKKBBĺĺEFI Governance<Macintosh HD:Temporary Items:AutoRecovery save of Minutes 11 Governance<Macintosh HD:Temporary Items:AutoRecovery save of Minutes 11 Governance<Macintosh HD:Temporary Items:AutoRecovery save of Minutes 11 Governance<Macintosh HD:Temporary Items:AutoRecovery save of Minutes 11 Governance7Macintosh HD:Meetings 02-03:Meeting 115:Minutes 115.txt Governance7Macintosh HD:Meetings 02-03:Meeting 115:Minutes 115.txt Governance7Macintosh HD:Meetings 02-03:Meeting 115:Minutes 115.txt Governance7Macintosh HD:Meetings 02-03:Meeting 115:Minutes 115.txt Governance7Macintosh HD:Meetings 02-03:Meeting 115:Minutes_115.doc Governance;Macintosh HD:Web:uafgov:faculty:fsfy03meetings:fsmin115.rtfe)^`o(.^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.e@zzzzuG@@GTimes New Roman5Symbol3 Arial5 Geneva3Times9New York? Courier New"A6Cy&6Cy&gUe$+0dC]MINUTESGovernance Office Governance Oh+'0d   , 8DLT\'MINUTESINUGovernance OfficedoveNormaln GovernanceO2veMicrosoft Word 8.0d@G@SKv@SKvg ՜.+,D՜.+,8 hp  'U of AweUb MINUTES Title8(RZ _PID_GUID _PID_HLINKS'AN{D961E400-6B3C-11D7-8449-0050E460D42A}A| Ahttp://www.gi.alaska.edu/staffcouncil/westridge-construction.htmxVWFhttp://www.alaska.edu/state/archives/2003/2003press/ACalltoArms1.htmlx  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~    Root Entry FK[vData 1TablelWordDocument&SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8 CompObjXObjectPoolK[vK[v FMicrosoft Word DocumentNB6WWord.Document.8