{\rtf1\mac\ansicpg10000\uc1 \deff7\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\upr{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset256\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}{\f2\fnil\fcharset256\fprq2{\*\panose 02070309020205020404}Courier New;}
{\f7\fnil\fcharset256\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0503030404040204}Geneva;}{\f12\fnil\fcharset256\fprq2{\*\panose 02020502060305060204}New York;}{\f23\fswiss\fcharset128\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}Arial Unicode MS;}
{\f190\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS;}{\f188\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS CE;}{\f189\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS Cyr;}{\f191\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS Greek;}
{\f192\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS Tur;}{\f193\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS Baltic;}}{\*\ud{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset256\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}
{\f2\fnil\fcharset256\fprq2{\*\panose 02070309020205020404}Courier New;}{\f7\fnil\fcharset256\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0503030404040204}Geneva;}{\f12\fnil\fcharset256\fprq2{\*\panose 02020502060305060204}New York;}
{\f23\fswiss\fcharset128\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}Arial Unicode MS;}{\f190\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS;}{\f188\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS CE;}{\f189\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS Cyr;}
{\f191\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS Greek;}{\f192\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS Tur;}{\f193\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial Unicode MS Baltic;}}}}{\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\adjustright \f7\cgrid \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive Default Paragraph Font;}{\*\cs15 \additive \sbasedon10 page number;}{\s16\widctlpar\adjustright \f7\cgrid 
\sbasedon0 \snext16 sp3;}{\s17\qc\sl480\slmult0\widctlpar\adjustright \b\f12\fs28\cgrid \sbasedon0 \snext17 Headings;}{\s18\qj\fi360\sl480\slmult0\widctlpar\adjustright \f12\fs28\cgrid \sbasedon0 \snext18 Paragraph;}{\s19\ri-800\widctlpar
\tx980\tx1800\tx5760\adjustright \f12\cgrid \sbasedon0 \snext19 senate minutes;}{\s20\widctlpar\adjustright \f2\fs20\cgrid \sbasedon0 \snext20 Plain Text;}}{\info{\title MINUTES}{\author Governance Office}{\operator Governance}
{\creatim\yr2004\mo6\dy8\hr15\min37}{\revtim\yr2004\mo6\dy8\hr15\min37}{\version2}{\edmins2}{\nofpages23}{\nofwords6063}{\nofchars34560}{\*\company Governance}{\nofcharsws42442}{\vern115}}\margb720 
\widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\hyphhotz0\sprstsp\otblrul\brkfrm\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\sprstsm\truncex\nolead\nospaceforul\msmcap\lytprtmet\hyphcaps0\viewkind4\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot \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\adjustright \f7\cgrid {MINUTES
\par ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ FACULTY SENATE MEETING #122
\par MONDAY, APRIL 5, 2004
\par Wood Center Carol Brown Ballroom
\par 
\par 
\par }\pard\plain \s19\widctlpar\adjustright \f12\cgrid {\f7 I\tab The meeting was called to order by President Pinney at 1:05 p.m.
\par }\pard\plain \widctlpar\adjustright \f7\cgrid {
\par \tab A.\tab ROLL CALL 
\par \tab 
\par }\pard \ri-360\widctlpar\adjustright {\tab }{\caps Members Present:\tab \tab Members Absent:}{
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {\tab *Allen, J.\tab \tab \tab \tab Davis, M.
\par \tab Barnhardt, C.\tab \tab \tab Kupries, M.
\par \tab Berman, G.   \tab \tab \tab 
\par \tab Box, M.   \tab \tab \tab \tab 
\par \tab Bult-Ito, A.  \tab \tab \tab 
\par \tab Cysewski, S.   \tab \tab \tab 
\par \tab Dinstel, R.   \tab \tab \tab OTHERS PRESENT:
\par \tab Erickson, K. \tab \tab \tab Brandt, A. 
\par \tab Gradinger, R. \tab \tab \tab deForrest, R. 
\par \tab *Hannigan, M. \tab \tab \tab Duffy, L. 
\par \tab *Haugen, L.   \tab \tab \tab Henry, L. 
\par \tab Herman, S.      \tab \tab \tab Kawula, J. 
\par \tab Leguard, J.  \tab \tab \tab Layral, S.
\par \tab Luick, B.   \tab \tab \tab \tab Lind, M.
\par \tab Ma, Z. (R. Wackerbauer)\tab Martin, W. 
\par \tab *Leiner, R.     \tab \tab \tab Morrison, J. 
\par \tab McCarthy, P. (N. M\u246\'9alder)\tab Reichardt, P.
\par \tab McRoy, P.     \tab \tab \tab Schamel, D. 
\par \tab Nakaneczny, M.    \tab \tab 
\par \tab Newberry, R. \tab \tab \tab 
\par \tab Odess, D. 
\par \tab Patil, S. 
\par \tab Pinney, P.
\par \tab Reynolds, J. 
\par \tab Roberts, L. 
\par \tab Schneider, W. (J. Anderson)
\par \tab Shur, Y. \tab \tab \tab \tab 
\par \tab Smith, J.   \tab \tab \tab \tab 
\par \tab Weber, J.\tab \tab \tab \tab 
\par \tab Wisen, C. \tab \tab \tab \tab 
\par \tab Zilberkant, E.\tab \tab \tab 
\par \tab Zhang, S. \tab \tab \tab \tab 
\par 
\par *audioconference was unavailable for most of the meeting.  
\par 
\par }\pard\plain \s19\widctlpar\adjustright \f12\cgrid {\f7 \tab NON-VOTING MEMBERS PRESENT:\tab 
\par \tab O'Neill, R.   - President, ÃÛÌÒÓ°ÏñSC\tab 
\par \tab Collins, J.   - Dean, SOM   \tab \tab 
\par \tab Joseph, B.  - Executive Dean, CRA
\par \tab Stickel, T.   - Registrar
\par 
\par \tab NON-VOTING MEMBERS ABSENT:
\par \tab Walker, T.  - President, ASÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ
\par \tab Graduate Student, GSO\tab 
\par 
\par \tab B.\tab The minutes to Meeting #121 (March 1, 2004) were approved as distributed via e-mail.  
\par }\pard\plain \widctlpar\adjustright \f7\cgrid {
\par \tab C.\tab The agenda was approved as distributed via e-mail.  Dan Odess asked that item VII, B be pulled for further committee work.  Pete Pinney indicated that Eva Kopacz was in Anchorage and unavailable to give a faculty liaison report.  
\par 
\par 
\par II\tab Status of Chancellor's Office Actions
\par \tab A.\tab Motions Approved:
\par \tab \tab 1.\tab Motion to amend the Faculty Senate Section 3, 
\par \tab \tab \tab (Article V, Committee, Permanent) of the Bylaws 
\par \tab \tab \tab to establish a "Committee on the Status of Women."  
\par \tab B.\tab Motions Pending:  
\par \tab \tab 2.\tab Motion to approve a B.A. in Child Development and 
\par \tab \tab \tab Family Studies.
\par 
\par Paul Reichardt indicated that a clean copy of the B.A. in Child Development and Family Studies proposal was going forward to the Board.   
\par }\pard \fi-720\li720\widctlpar\adjustright {
\par 
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {III\tab Public Comments/Questions - 
\par }\pard \fi-720\li720\widctlpar\adjustright {
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {\tab A.\tab Jacquie Goss - Sustainable Campus Initiatives 
\par }\pard \fi-720\li720\widctlpar\adjustright {\cf1 
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {\cf1 Russell deForrest}{ attended for Jacquie Goss.  He gave a Powerpoint presentation }{\cf1 
focusing on sustainable issues on campus.  This Powerpoint presentation is available from the Faculty Senate office and includes the following key points:  
\par 
\par We believe that the success of higher education in th
e 21st century will be judged by our ability to put forward a bold agenda that makes sustainability and the environment a cornerstone of academic practice.  -- University Leaders for a Sustainable Future.  
\par 
\par Integrating values of:  Ecology---Equity---Economy
\par 
\par Vision--ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ should be a living laboratory for successful integration of social, economic, and ecological goals in the circumpolar north, and a leader in academic programs which address sustainability across disciplines.  
\par 
\par ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Sustainable Campus Issues--need to look at University Policy, Operational Changes, Research Initiatives, Community Engagement
\par 
\par University Policy:  signing Tallories declaration; incorporate LEED principles into campus buildings and construction; policy for environmentally preferable purchasing. 
\par 
\par Operational Changes:  Baseline assessment -- campus environmental audit; Waste reduction and energy efficiency; encouraging waste saving strategies on campus.  
\par 
\par Research Initiatives:  unanswered questions; input and feedback from faculty/staff/students; establish grant opportunities to encourage research; classroom engagement.
\par 
\par Community Engagement:  Campus transportation and housing; community design; integrating science, education, and public policy; increasing student opportunity for engagement in university, community and circumpolar issues.  
\par 
\par Assessment tools:  Ecological footprint or carbon footprint; cost/benefit analysis; university mission. 
\par 
\par Current Focus areas:  Policy commitment -- Tallories Declaration; assessment tools; environmental audit; waste reduction; transportation.  
\par 
\par Higher Education plays a critical role in creating and disseminating the knowledge, skills and values for society.  It has unique academic freedom and the critical mass and di
versity of skills to develop new ideas; comment on society and its challenges; and to engage in bold experimentation in sustainable living. --Anthony Cortese, Second Nature
\par 
\par The web site for University Leaders for a Sustainable Future is:  www.ulsf.org
\par 
\par 
\par B.\tab Allen Brandt - Student Academic Freedom
\par 
\par Allen Brandt, president of new campus club called Students for Academic Freedom.  He spoke about his concerns of academic freedom for students.  
\par 
\par Students for Academic Freedom is a national coalition of independent campus groups dedicated to restoring academic freedom and educational values to America's institutions of higher learning. 
\par 
\par Students for Academic Freedom is dedicated to the following goals:  
\par 1.\tab To promote intellectual diversity on campus. 
\par 2.\tab To defend the right of students to be treated with respect by faculty and administrators, regardless of their political or religious belief.  
\par 3.\tab To promote fairness, civility and inclusion in student affairs. 
\par 4.\tab To secure the adoption of the "Academic Bill of Rights" as official university policy.  
\par 
\par Allen Brandt urged the Faculty Senate to draft a policy that would insure that faculty are aware of their rights and responsibilities in the classroom.  
\par 
\par The website is:  www.uaf.edu/saf   Allen Brandt can be contact at:  ffadb1@uaf.edu.  
\par 
\par 
\par C.\tab Larry Duffy spoke in support of the CSEM Unit Criteria.  The College has been working on these criteria for two years.  
\par 
\par }\pard \fi-720\li720\widctlpar\adjustright {
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {IV\tab Governance Reports
\par 
\par \tab A.\tab President's Comments - Pete Pinney
\par 
\par }{\cf1 Pete Pinney indicated that the Faculty Senate will be co-sponsoring Sandra Elman, April 23-24.  She will make a presentation on Friday, April 23 from 1-2, in the media classroom, Rasmuson Library Room 340.  This will be video-conferenced.  Topic 
of her presentation is trends in higher education.  
\par 
\par The Chancellor Search is coming along and four candidates will be invited to campus in April.  There will be a number of forums for faculty and staff to attend.  
\par  
\par The Women's Conference will be held on campus Thursday-Saturday, April 8-10.  
\par }{
\par 
\par \tab B.\tab President-Elect 's Comments - Abel Bult-Ito
\par 
\par }{\cf1 Abel Bult-Ito's comments on the outcomes based budget were attached to agenda.  He forwarded responses that he received from faculty to Pat Pitney.  Her responses 
are attached.  His general impression is that while they are talking real communication is not taking place.  Paul Reichardt suggested that the Chancellor sit down with a group of faculty to talk about target and goals for ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ before they are presented to
 statewide.
\par   
\par Abel is disappointed with the lack of response from Pat Pitney and others involved.  Their responses do not take into consideration the special requirement of some of our small classes.  Abel asked for suggestions of what to do.  
\par 
\par Jennifer Reynolds had a response to the section on setting goals and targets.  Setting unrealistic goals is a bad thing because it distorts decisionmaking.  Abel indicated that he will probable step back from the issue because he feels that he has had no 
e
ffect.  Peter McRoy said that it has been good work because it has revealed an issue that many are not aware of who is setting policy and hopes that Abel will stay with it.  Karen Erickson questioned the lack of consequences of not reaching the goals.  Wh
i
le it is not stated budget cuts may be the consequence.  Dan Odess stated there is a lot of talking but no communication.  There is no give and take.  Maybe Chancellor Lind may be a better person to communication to Pat.  Jennifer Reynolds said there were
 
three statements in Pat's emails that were particularly important.  One was a reference to reallocation of existing resources and that was the only solution to the need for resources.  This may be a very significant outcome.  The other two statements incl
ude looking at other flagship institutes and UA may have to follow state measures.  
\par 
\par Abel expressed his concern that other faculty have worked on this and haven't gotten anywhere.  On the other hand it is being portrayed as faculty being involved in the pr
ocess.  While we have been involved there is has been no impact.  Pete Pinney indicated that they would bring this up with the Faculty Alliance.  ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ is not the only campus feeling certain frustrations.  
\par }{
\par 
\par \tab C.\tab Staff Council - Rory O'Neill
\par 
\par }{\cf1 Rory O'Neill, S
taff Council President, reported on a number of items they are dealing with at the system level through Staff Alliance and at the ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ.  The Ad Hoc Committee on Accountability and Sustainability will be sending out a report.  Vice-President Jim Johnson has
 met with a group of non-represented staff on a compensation task force to look at the various issues.  Many staff are looking forward to the new UAChoice health benefits program.  Open enrollment starts in April and runs for a month. 
\par 
\par There is a recogniti
on award for staff contributions to students called Make Students Count.  This is a President's level award.  Nominations for the ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Chancellor's Recognition award are also open.  Rory encouraged faculty to nominate staff members for these awards.  

\par 
\par Staff Council is 100% behind ASÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ's initiative on glass recycling.  He would like to see this work for the community.  
\par 
\par At the system level there are two things they are working on.  There is Board of Regents policy for governance but that has been no UA regulations promulgated for governance.  Staff Alliance is pushing for formulation of university regulations.  
\par 
\par At ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ on April 6th is the staff longevity awards ceremony.  Rory encouraged everyone to attend.  This will strictly be longevity, some of the oth
er awards will be moved to a staff appreciation social on May 14th.  ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ day at North Pole is coming up and a number of department will make an appearance there.  ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Human Resource director, Carolyn Chapman, has agreed to recognize governance participati
on in the personnel files.  It will represent something like training or service to the university.  
\par }{
\par Finally, Rory O'Neill encouraged those who supervise staff to allow them to participate in governance.  
\par 
\par 
\par \tab D.\tab ASÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ - Thom Walker
\par 
\par Thom Walker was not available to give a report.
\par 
\par 
\par \tab E.\tab Faculty Liaison - Eva Kopacz
\par 
\par }{\cf1 Eva Kopacz was not available to give a report. 
\par }{
\par 
\par V\tab Comments from Chancellor, Marshall Lind - 
\par 
\par Pete Pinney presented Chancellor Lind with another gift--a BS blocker to neutralize Senatorial accusations.  
\par 
\par Chancellor Lind would agree that Abel had done a very good job, a very thorough job on the outcomes assessment.  He would hope that Abel would stay involved in the process.  On the 15th of April he is supposed  to have some suggested figures 
for the targets and goals that will be discussed with President Hamilton.  There are five outcomes that we are looking at this year.  Two of them related to research.  We are trying to gather the data:  what is realistic in terms amounts, how much can we 
d
o, what has happened over the past few years.  Two are related to enrollment.  One is an enrollment issue of what can we reasonable project for ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ based on what we see in terms of high school graduates from the state, looking at our out-of-state enrollme
n
t, as well as retention.  The other outcome has to do with the jobs, referred to as graduates of High Demand programs.  Paul Reichardt has asked all the deans and program directors to gather information, so we can have some kind of reasonable assessment o
f
 what we can do.  He would like to have someone from the Senate work with them to finalize realistic targets for ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ.  It would like it to be as realistic as possible.  There is no point in going out with figures that are unrealistic--you raise expectatio
ns for things that may not happen.  The Senate has done a lot of preliminary work and now we need to take the next step.  
\par 
\par The Chancellor wished to share exciting news about the Sneddon chair candidate.  What impressed him about the individual was a note r
ecapping a dinner he had with the journalism faculty.  All of the discussion was about students.  He was very impressed with the commitment of faculty in that department.  Hopefully an offer will be made and we can move on with the other two endowed chair
s.  
\par 
\par Chancellor Lind stated that we didn't quite make what we had hoped to do, that was to come up with an agreement on classified research that we could hold up as a model that could easily be adopted by statewide.  What we did do by raising this issue, i
s elevate the question of classified research to the level where it should be.  That is, is it going to be a statewide issue.  It will result in a regulation that will be patterned after the Board's policy.  Much of what has been proposed will be the basi
s
 of the new regulation.  There was a meeting with President Hamilton, Craig Dorman, and others talking about what the ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Senate has done and how it can apply on a statewide basis.  Chancellor Lind is very pleased that some things will happen and it is di
r
ectly related to the senate's interest and recommendations.  Much of your concern will be incorporated.  There will be a chance to discuss this through the Faculty Alliance.  That is the level it will now go.  There may be one or two incidents a year that
 
we think will have some classified research implication.  It is a good possibility that the first classified research question may come from Anchorage as it relates to their Logistics program.  This work will go forward and he wanted to thank the senate f
or their involvement.  
\par 
\par Chancellor Lind had an opportunity a couple of weeks ago to dedicate a new addition on the Bristol Bay campus.  It was dedicated to a former director, Peggy Woods.  They are still $1 million short and need additional funding to finish the building.  

\par 
\par One additional item deals with the College of Engineering proposal.  They will be going to the Board of Regents next week to talk about the creation of a College of Engineering and Mining.  They will be pulling all the engineering progr
ams together.  Also created would be a College of Science and Math.  The School of Mineral Engineering will not exist as a separate school.  We will not be reducing our efforts in the mineral engineering programs, but will be incorporated into the new Col
l
ege of Engineering and Mining.  There is some concern that with the reorganization they will be eliminating program.  That is not the intent.   We hope to strengthen those programs with a different organization.  We hope to have it in place by next fall. 
 
\par 
\par Peter McRoy commented that the Senate is not pleased with the result of the classified research policy and they will be forwarding a new policy.  
\par 
\par 
\par \tab Comments from Provost, Paul Reichardt -
\par }\pard \fi-720\li720\widctlpar\adjustright {
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {Paul Reichardt commented on the discussion on Outcomes Based Bu
dgeting and the effort to communicate with Pat Pitney.  This shows the fundamental problem of communication with statewide about productivity goals.  We always get into discussions about our lack of productivity and decline in productivity.  None of us ha
ve time to go back to the data and put together the argument from our standpoint.  We need to sit down with the raw data and come up with targets.  
\par }\pard \fi-720\li720\widctlpar\adjustright {
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {At the Administrative Committee meeting Nicole M\u246\'9alder came with an issue about publication restrictions on 
papers that come from certain countries.  Paul has some material about the issue and will give it to Pete and Abel.  
\par 
\par The Provost then spoke on the Academic Performance Criteria.  He took this to the Provost Council and they have been working on it over t
he past several months.  Faculty involvement includes the 1/2 day retreat and Pete's involvement in the Provost Council.  He hopes over the next couple of months to come to a set of criteria to measure performance.  There may be some allocation of increme
ntal budget money based on performance.  He would appreciate input from faculty over the next month.  
\par 
\par The final item is an update on the Academic Development Plan.  There is not much change.  This version contains an expanded category on renewable natural
 resources to natural resources.  It also cleans up things in respect to opportunities and needs.  This will be used as a guideline over the next two or three years.  
\par 
\par Abel asked about a written response to the Budget report from last year.  He mentioned that Craig Wisen is coming up with another data set; however, it would still be appropriate to give a response to his report.  
\par 
\par Concerning the academic performance criteria, Abel asked if it was 
possible to see the data to compare the schools and colleges and see how the data works.  Paul indicated that he has held back on some of the data because he wanted to get what sounds like good criteria before everyone answers the question of how will my 
unit fare.  
\par 
\par 
\par }\pard \fi-720\li720\widctlpar\adjustright {VI\tab Old Business
\par 
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {\tab A.\tab Motion on classified research policy, submitted by Faculty Affairs 
\par 
\par }{\cf1 Peter McRoy spoke about the actions of the reconciliation committee and this revised policy.  The Senate members of the committee were Mark Box, Rich Co
llins, and Peter McRoy.  The administrative members were Roger Smith, Ted DeLaca, and Mike Hostina.
\par 
\par What is before the Senate today is the revised policy prepared by the members of the reconciliation committee.  It is very similar to the original policy a
pproved by the Senate.  A change is that the review process applies to the faculty oversight committee.  There are three points brought forward:  1) establish a review committee; 2) the composition of that committee; and 3) the rule for review.  
\par 
\par Mark Box
 stated that the issue involves three aspects; there are questions of what is legal, practical, and what is good for the university and community.  What is good for the university and community has not been a significant part of our conversations.  We hav
e
 been tied up with the legalistic arguments.  The General Council insists that regulations listed in the policy passed by the Senate bind the president in a way that is incompatible with the control of classified research given to him by the Regent's poli
c
y. The council's overriding concern for the president's power distorts his reading of the policy he sites since the language of policy shows no concern for the president's power.  The Regent's were very concerned that any classified research be regulated 
p
roperly.  The president is required to promulgate university regulations that protect the basic tenets of university.  We need a review of proposals that does not allow the decision makers to shape the advice that they get.  Some of the regulations that w
e
 have proposed have to do with promotion and tenure and the treatment of students.  These are decisions that traditionally belong to faculty.  Mark urged senators to approve the policy before the Senate.  Pete Pinney indicated that the policy before the S
enate is a substitute for what was vetoed and was not able to come to a reconciliation.  
\par }{
\par Dan Odess asked Chancellor Lind what he felt was a productive way to proceed with a policy on classified research.  Chancellor Lind felt that the Senate should pass a
 policy, which reflects the desires of the faculty.  There are certain points that faculty feel very strongly about and they should not be lost.  All the different protections that will be in the best interest of the university need to be forwarded.  This
 
will be helpful to inform the next level of faculty concerns.  The process of promulgation a regulation will have a series of hearings.   This will be elevated to systemwide so that Faculty Alliance will become involved.  This opens it up to a whole lot o
f
 exposure.  I don't think all of these will be adopted, but the one of most concern stands a good chance for inclusion in the regulation.  Where the breakdown has been is in the legal realm.  He is optimistic that it will happen.  This will go to a level 
that will involve the Board of Regent's knowledge of this and the Faculty Alliance will be able to make comments to them.  
\par 
\par Abel asked the Chancellor if he would veto the motion.  Chancellor Lind indicated that he would not veto it as he would like to see it moved forward.  It will be forwarded without his signature.  The motion was approved unanimously.
\par 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc\widctlpar\adjustright {Preamble:
\par Statement of Faculty Senate representatives of the Classified Policy
\par Reconciliation Committee
\par 
\par 
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {The Faculty Senate is "The primary mechanism fo
r the formulation and oversight of academic policy is the Faculty Senate. Among concerns addressed by the Faculty Senate are: course and program development and change; policies related to academic procedures; academic freedom and faculty rights and respo
nsibilities; and, quality of teaching, research and service" (http://www.uaf.edu/uafgov/faculty). Underlying the following revision of the senate's proposal are these concerns.
\par 
\par }\pard \fi-360\li360\widctlpar\adjustright {1. The institutional officer charged with security oversight (the Facility Secu
rities Officer or equivalent) must be funded fully so that she or he can conduct a complete and thorough review of proposals and assess all the impacts of the proposed activity. Full funding of this office is the most important guarantee for the safety of
 the community, the protection of the academic environment, and compliance with federal requirements for security.
\par 
\par 2.  The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Research Oversight Committee must not only be independent but also seen to be so. The review panel members will not require a security clearance as they will review an unclassified report of the proposal that is prepared by the Facilit
y Securities Officer. The review committee will give a finding of advice to the chancellor. It is critical that the chancellor is not seen to be shaping the advice coming to her or him.
\par 
\par 3.  The senate must be able to meet its responsibilities so that the a
cademic integrity of the university is maintained in teaching, research, and service. A faculty review panel elected from the senate will enable the senate to meet these responsibilities.
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {
\par The purpose of academic research in the university is the education
 of students, at all levels, and the generation of new knowledge. It is important that the university undertake research of high quality and originality. Ongoing research strengthens the university in a variety of ways.
\par 
\par }\pard \fi-360\li540\widctlpar\adjustright {\bullet    through the stimulation of creative and intellectual investigation by faculty and students,
\par \bullet    through the discovery and dissemination of new knowledge that benefits society,
\par \bullet    through participation in a learning process that is unique to research and creative investigation,
\par \bullet    through transmission of new knowledge to students in the classroom.
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {
\par 
\par }\pard \qc\widctlpar\adjustright {ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Policy Concerning Classified and Proprietary Research
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {
\par 
\par RATIONALE:  This policy is offered pursuant to Regents' policy 10.07.02, which says that the university may engage in classified o
r proprietarily research, subject to approval of the chancellor, "in accordance with Regents' Policy, University Regulation, applicable laws and regulations, and MAU rules and procedures."
\par 
\par Towards ensuring that classified and proprietary research will be 
conducted in a responsible and ethical manner consistent with mission of the University of ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Fairbanks, this policy will provide the chancellor with findings on research proposals reached after a review by a duly constituted committee of faculty.

\par 
\par The Faculty Senate seeks a policy, in principle, of complete disclosure of research activities and sources of funds. The conduct of classified research inherently restricts participation of students and faculty who work on such research.
\par 
\par At times, freedom of
 discourse and dissemination conflicts with the greater, immediate needs of society. Research funded by industrial organizations may involve patent applications that require a short delay of publication of a thesis resulting from that research. Faculty me
mbers may also wish to act as consultants on classified research projects not involving the use of University facilities.
\par 
\par For reasons such as the above, proposals to conduct classified and proprietary research will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis by th
e university campus chancellor. With disclosure to the Faculty Senate, an Faculty Research Oversight Committee will advise the chancellor by means of a finding arrived at by a review following the guidelines set forth below.
\par 
\par Basic Principles
\par 
\par The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ mission statement proclaims that the University of ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Fairbanks is "the nation's northern most Land, Sea and Space Grant university and international research center, [which] advances and disseminates knowledge through creative teaching, resea
r
ch and public service with an emphasis on ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ, the North and their diverse peoples" (BOR policy 10.01.03).  Through exercising the fulfillment of that mission, the university has made possible relationships with government and industry presenting intel
l
ectual and professional opportunities to faculty and students that they would not otherwise have. Concomitant with the open and full pursuit of that mission comes our understanding that the pursuit of knowledge must be tempered by ethical obligations to s
ociety; hence our concern with an ethical approach to permitting classified and proprietary research on campus.
\par 
\par Definitions
\par 
\par }{\i Classified Research}{: Research that has a security classification established by a federal agency.  Various agencies of the federal 
government may designate some federally sponsored research project, either all or a portion of a particular project, as Top Secret, Secret, or Confidential.  Under the terms of this policy, research projects so designated are considered classified.
\par 
\par }{\i Proprietary Research}{: Industrially sponsored proprietary research for which the sponsor requires a delay in publication of the results after submission of the final report.
\par 
\par Faculty Research Oversight Committee
\par 
\par The Faculty Senate shall establish a Faculty Resea
rch Oversight Committee as a standing committee of the senate to review all classified and proprietary proposals, grants, and contracts according to the guidelines listed below and to advise the chancellor of their compliance or lack thereof with universi
t
y policy.  Membership on the committee shall be limited to 9 senators, with no more than 2 members being from the same unit.  A Facilities Security Officer shall be an ex-officio member of the committee.  The committee will also include someone from the O
ffice of Sponsored Research and a designee of the chancellor as ex-officio members.  Committee membership must broadly represent the university community.
\par 
\par 
\par Guidelines for the Faculty Research Oversight Committee for Reviewing Classified or Proprietary Research Proposals
\par 
\par Proposal review requires that each principal investigator prepare a short non-classified or non-proprietary description and title for the project that can be publicly reviewed.  The following will apply to such statements.  The Facilities S
ecurity Officer must participate in the review process to clarify questions pertaining to classified material.
\par 
\par }\pard \fi-360\li720\widctlpar\adjustright {1.  The university will undertake only those contracts and activities that do not compromise the safety and/or well being of ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñns and that honor existing agreements with the diverse peoples of ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ.
\par 
\par 2.  The university will under no circumstances enter into any agreement or contract for which the direct primary purpose of the research or application of the results is the destruction of human life or harm to humans.
\par 
\par 3.  The university will make every reasonable effort to keep classified information and activities separate from the normal academic functions of the university.
\par 
\par 4.  No thesis or project that may not be published because it contains federally classified or proprietary information will be accepted toward fulfillment of the requirements for an advanced degree.
\par 
\par 5.  For proprietary research the university will not enter into or renew any contract or accept any grant that prohibits th
e open publication or dissemination of research results within a reasonable period, typically (and expected to be) no more than 60 days or a period negotiated at the time of contract initiation.
\par 
\par 6.  No university courses given for degree credit shall be classified in any part.
\par 
\par 7.  The university will not accept any contract that cannot be publicly acknowledged. The university will maintain an open record of all classified and proprietary research contracts.
\par 
\par 8.  The university will permit the participatio
n of faculty members in classified research of their choice by means of normal consulting arrangements or leaves of absence without pay. Faculty shall not use classified research work in consideration for tenure, promotion, or post-tenure review.
\par 
\par 9.  Any unique security costs associated with classified or proprietary research will be borne by the unit within which the contract is sponsored.
\par 
\par 10. The university will establish and maintain Facilities Security Officers to the degree necessary to ensure the legal compliance of all classified agreements.
\par 
\par 11. The Faculty Research Oversight Committee will offer changes to this policy as needed through periodic reviews occurring no less than once every 5 years.
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {
\par 
\par Review Process for Classified and Proprietary Research Proposals
\par 
\par }\pard \li360\widctlpar\adjustright {The following procedures shall apply to all proposals submitted to the Office of Sponsored Programs.
\par }\pard \fi-360\li720\widctlpar\adjustright {
\par 1.  The Office of Sponsored Programs will use a checklist to determine if a project requires formal review by the Faculty Research Oversight Committee.
\par 
\par 2.  The Faculty Research Oversight Committee will review proposals identified as classified or proprietary according to the guidelines given above and offer recommendations to the chancellor in an expedited fashion.
\par 
\par 3.  The committee will publish an annual report on the status of classified and proprietary contracts, grants and proposals at ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ to the Faculty Senate.
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {
\par 
\par Obligation
\par 
\par The university guarantees each member of the academic community the freedom to inquire and affirms the right of e
ach member to access all available information in his or her field. A basic function of the university is to carry out research in an open and unrestricted manner with complete freedom to publish or otherwise disseminate the results of its search for know
l
edge.  The requirements of secrecy and restrictions on freedom to publish, which are inherent in security classification, or the restrictions on dissemination, which derive from proprietary rights of privately sponsored research, are in direct opposition 
to this function.
\par 
\par Exercising this function does not, however, prohibit self-imposed restrictions based on the professional ethics of a particular discipline. It also does 
not prohibit the existence of classified information to reside on campus such as sometimes arises, for instance, in connection with consulting work. This policy is directed towards maintaining a separation between classified information and the teaching a
nd research functions of the university.
\par 
\par 
\par 
\par 
\par \tab B.\tab Resolution on Parking, submitted by Faculty Affairs
\par }\pard \fi-720\li720\widctlpar\adjustright {
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {\cf1 Peter McRoy spoke about the need for this resolution.  It came about because university practice is to withhold registration for people who o
we on parking tickets.  This should not be a de facto qualification for registration.  Tim Stickel asked if there had been any discussion with the Business Office as they are the ones who put on the holds.  They, of course, have to enforce them.  Discussi
o
ns with the Business Office indicated that they put a hold on faculty, staff, and students.  It does not distinguish between parking, library books, or any other thing.  Tim asked that the Business Office also be added to the resolution.  The motion with 
this change passed without objection.  
\par }\pard \fi-720\li720\widctlpar\adjustright {
\par RESOLUTION: 
\par =========
\par 
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {Whereas current University practice does not allow a person to register for a class if there is an outstanding parking ticket even if the ticket is being contested, and
\par 
\par Whereas such a practice constitutes an undeclared qualification for course registration that is not stated in the catalog, and
\par 
\par Whereas students are being denied access to the University because of this practice, now
\par  
\par Therefore be it resolved that the Faculty Senate requests that the Business Office, Registrar and Parking Services end this practice and sever all connections between parking violations and student registration.
\par 
\par }\pard \ri720\widctlpar\adjustright {
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {
\par 
\par VII\tab New Business
\par 
\par \tab A.\tab Motion to amend Section 3 (Article V, Committees,}{\dbch\f23 \hich\af7\dbch\af23\loch\f7  }{E. Standing) of the Bylaws to establish a standing "Unit Criteria Committee" 
\par 
\par }{\cf1 Dan Odess presented the motion to add a standing Unit Criteria committee to the bylaws.  The Unit Criteria committee requires a lot of work and those who serve on it are requires to serve o
n two committees.  There will be continued work for the committee because all peer review units are also to submit unit criteria and to review them every five years.  The motion passed unanimously.  
\par }{
\par MOTION:
\par ======
\par 
\par The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate moves to amend Section 3 (Article V, Committees, E. Standing) of the bylaws to establish a standing "Unit Criteria Committee."\~ 
\par 
\par CAPS = Additions
\par [[   ]] = Deletions 
\par 
\par 
\par 3.\tab THE UNIT CRITERIA COMMITTEE WILL REVIEW PROPOSED UNIT CRITER
IA FOR EVALUATION OF FACULTY SUBMITTED BY THE VARIOUS PEER-REVIEW UNITS OF ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ, AND TO WORK WITH THE HEADS OF THOSE UNITS (OR THEIR DESIGNEES) TO ENSURE THAT THEIR CRITERIA ARE CONSISTENT WITH CRITERIA DEFINED IN THE ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ FACULTY APPOINTMENT & EVALUATION P
OLICIES & REGULATIONS "BLUE BOOK".  THE COMMITTEE WILL ALSO REVIEW PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE "BLUE BOOK."
\par 
\par TO ENSURE THAT PERSPECTIVES FROM ACROSS ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ ARE REPRESENTED, MEMBERSHIP WILL CONSIST OF FACULTY SENATORS, WITH ONE MEMBER DRAWN FROM EACH OF THE FOLLOWING SCHOOLS/COLLEGES:  CLA; CRA/CES; CSEM; SFOS; ENGINEERING; AND ONE FROM SNRAS, SOED, OR SOM.
\par 
\par \tab EFFECTIVE:  \tab Immediately
\par 
\par \tab RATIONALE:  \tab Currently the Senate has an Ad Hoc committee
\par \tab \tab that fulfills this responsibility.  That committee is 
\par \tab \tab composed of members drawn from the Senate's other 
\par \tab \tab standing committees, with the result that members of 
\par \tab \tab the Unit Criteria committee are effectively pulling double 
\par \tab \tab duty.  It is apparent that the work done by this committee 
\par \tab \tab will be ongoing, as each unit develops criteria and is 
\par \tab \tab required to renew them via the Faculty Senate every five 
\par \tab \tab years.
\par 
\par 
\par *
\par 
\par \tab B.\tab Motion to approve the Unit Criteria for Anthropology
\par 
\par }{\cf1 Dan Odess asked that the motion be pulled.  The committee would like to review the final draft one more time.  
\par }{
\par 
\par *
\par 
\par \tab C.\tab Motion to approve the Unit Criteria for the Science 
\par \tab \tab and Engineering unit of CSEM 
\par 
\par }{\cf1 Dan Odess asked that language be added to state that the criteria will continue to be in effect for the two units upon reorganization of CSEM.  The amendment passed.  The motion with the amendment passed unanimously.    }{
\par 
\par MOTION:
\par ======
\par 
\par The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate moves to approve the Unit Criteria for the Science and Engineering units of CSEM.  These criteria shall remain in effect in the event that there is a dissolution of CSEM until such time as the units develop criteria of their own. 

\par 
\par \tab EFFECTIVE:  \tab Immediately
\par \tab \tab \tab \tab Upon Chancellor Approval
\par 
\par \tab RATIONALE:  \tab The committee assessed the unit criteria 
\par \tab \tab submitted by the College of Science, Engineering, and 
\par \tab \tab Mathematics (CSEM).  With some changes, agreed upon 
\par \tab \tab by the school representative, the unit criteria were found 
\par \tab \tab to be consistent with ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ guidelines.
\par 
\par \tab \tab There is a proposal to move Engineering into a new College 
\par \tab \tab of Engineering and Mining.  These criteria will continue to 
\par \tab \tab be in effect until each of the separate units develop 
\par \tab \tab criteria of their own.  
\par 
\par \tab (See Agenda Attachment #7 for a copy of the unit criteria.)
\par 
\par 
\par ***
\par 
\par \tab D.\tab Resolution for the ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Rifle team 
\par 
\par }{\cf1 Pete Pinney indicated that this resolution will be presented to the Rifle team on April 30th.  The resolution passed without objection.  
\par }{
\par 
\par }\pard \qc\widctlpar\adjustright {\b RESOLUTION OF RECOGNITION
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {
\par }\pard \qj\fi-720\li720\widctlpar\adjustright {\b WHEREAS,}{ The ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ rifle team won its sixth consecutive NCAA Rifle Championship title in March, 
\par 
\par }{\b WHEREAS,}{ freshman Matt Rawlings was named a Co-Shooter of the NCAA Championship, and 
\par 
\par }{\b WHEREAS,}{ Matt Rawlings captured the individual smallbore championship and finished second in air rifle; Joe Hein was second in
 smallbore and fifth in individual air rifle; Jamie Beyerle took third in both smallbore and air rifle; and Karl Olsson posted a sixth place finish in smallbore, and 
\par 
\par }{\b WHEREAS,}{ four members of the Nanook rifle team earned National Rifle Association All-Ame
rican status--Matt Rawlings and Joe Hein were named first-team All-American by the National Rifle Association in both smallbore and air rifle; Karl Olson was named first-team All-American in the smallbore division and second-team honoree in air rifle; and
 Matthew Wallace was named first-team All-American in smallbore, now 
\par 
\par }{\b THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,}{ That the ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ Faculty Senate congratulates the 2003-2004 ÃÛÌÒÓ°Ïñ rifle team as NCAA champion and commends the team's superior performance.  
\par }\pard \widctlpar\adjustright {
\par 
\par *
\par 
\par \tab D.\tab Confirmation of Outstanding Senator of the Year Award, submitted by OSYA Screening Committee 
\par 
\par Pete Pinney indicated that the screening commi
ttee forwarded two names to be confirmed for the award.  Abel Bult-Ito indicated that to be confirmed they must receive a majority vote.  A vote was held by secret ballot and Jane Weber and Peter McRoy were confirmed as Outstanding Senator of the Year.  F
ormal resolutions will be presented at the next Faculty Senate meeting.  
\par 
\par  
\par \tab E.\tab Nomination & Election for President-Elect 
\par 
\par Pete Pinney called for any additional nominations.  Nominations were closed and an election was held.  Jane Weber spoke on behalf of the nomination of Michael Hannigan and Peter McRoy spoke on behalf of Shirish Patil.  
\par 
\par Pete reported the results of the balloting.  Shirish Patil was elected as President-Elect and Jane Weber and Peter McRoy were confirmed as Senator of the Year.  
\par 
\par It was later discovered that two ballots were submitted by rural members prior to the cut-off time.  This resulted in a tie vote.  Another election will be held.  The following is a message sent out later that day by Pete Pinney.  
\par 
\par I prematurely announced the
 results for president-elect. Two votes emailed in were posted before 2pm, which did meet the deadline.  That made the count evenly divided between both candidates.  As a result, I have declared another election.  I have instructed Sheri to distribute bal
lots to all senators. Please indicate your choice by returning the ballots to the governance office before April 16th.
\par 
\par I apologize for any confusion this may have caused. 
\par 
\par Pete Pinney,
\par Faculty Senate President
\par 
\par ****
\par 
\par 
\par VIII\tab Committee Reports 
\par 
\par \tab A.\tab Curricular Affairs - R. Newberry
\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  C. Mulder
\par 
\par Jennifer Reynolds indicated that the committee had just met on Friday and did not have a report. 
\par 
\par 
\par \tab D.\tab Core Review - D. Schamel
\par 
\par The following report was distributed as a handout. 
\par 
\par Core Review Committee 
\par Report of activities for March 2004
\par Douglas Schamel, Chair
\par 
\par Members present: Jill Faudree, Jin Brown, Jonathan Rosenberg, Derek Burleson, Douglas Schamel, Paul McCarthy, Rainer Newberry
\par Ex-officio: Sue McHenry
\par 
\par Things have been relatively quiet with the Core during March.
\par 
\par We reviewed a handful of petitions and approved the removal of the "W" and "O" from BIOL/FISH 427 (Ichthyology).
\par 
\par We are attempting to publish a brief article in the Sun/Star that updates major changes to the Core curriculum before students register for Fall 2004.
\par 
\par We are anxiously awaiting guidance from the ad hoc CLA committee that has been discussing the "Perspectives" portion of the Core.
\par 
\par 
\par \tab E.\tab Curriculum Review - W. Schneider
\par 
\par No report was available. 
\par 
\par 
\par \tab F.\tab Developmental Studies - J. Weber
\par 
\par A report was attached to the agenda. 
\par 
\par 
\par \tab G.\tab Faculty Appeals & Oversight - P. Layer
\par 
\par Paul Layer indicated that the reviews of administrators were being written.  
\par 
\par 
\par \tab H.\tab Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement \endash  P. McCarthy
\par 
\par A report was attached to the agenda. 
\par 
\par 
\par \tab I.\tab Ad Hoc Committee on Unit Criteria - Dan Odess
\par 
\par Dan Odess thanked the Senate for passing the CSEM unit criteria.  They have reviewed the Anthropology criteria, which will be forwarded to the Senate in May.  They just need another quick look at them.  They have looked at MAP (Marin
e Advisory Program) unit criteria.  They submitted them using a previous version of the Blue Book and they will revise them and resubmit them.  The committee has also looked at Math.  They had a nice clean set of criteria and they will deal with them at t
he April 16th meeting.  They expect to bring them forward at the May meeting as well.  
\par 
\par 
\par IX\tab Discussion Items - none
\par 
\par 
\par X\tab Members' Comments/Questions - 
\par 
\par Tim Stickel reminded everyone of the commencement ceremony on May 9th.  Registration for Fall 2004 begins today.  Tim asked faculty to encourage their students to register early.  They have a number of prizes that will be given away to students who regist
er before May 3rd.  
\par 
\par Pete Pinney stated that the statewide development director has come up with a naming policy.  It states that if you donate enough money you can have your name on a building, room, park or just about anywhere.  While it is innovative an
d a great way of making money, Pete is concerned that it goes against the Master Planning Committee Strategic Plan of open park naming of indigenous cultural heritage.  He intends to take this forward to the Faculty Alliance.  There are already criteria e
stablish at the MAU's.  
\par 
\par 
\par XI\tab Adjournment
\par 
\par }\pard\plain \s19\fi-720\li720\widctlpar\adjustright \f12\cgrid {\f7 \tab The meeting was adjourned at 3:15 p.m.
\par }\pard \s19\fi-1800\li1800\widctlpar\adjustright {\f7 
\par }\pard \s19\fi-720\li720\widctlpar\adjustright {\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\adjustright \f7\cgrid {
\par 
\par }}