ࡱ> ` jbjb ddQf f f f f j r  zzzz,z L{{{{{{{{,RDQf {{{{{f f {{{Bf {f { d f f f f {[f f [{ Sz}F[,0L%6[j DAM- MFOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT: Sheri Layral 312 Signers' Hall 474-7964 FYSENAT A G E N D A ϲʿֱ FACULTY SENATE MEETING #128 Monday, March 7, 2005 1:00 p.m. - 3:30 p.m. Wood Center Carol Brown Ballroom 1:00 I Call to Order Abel Bult-Ito 5 Min. A. Roll Call B. Approval of Minutes to Meeting #127 C. Adoption of Agenda 1:05 II Status of Chancellor's Office Actions 5 Min. A. Motions Approved: 1. Motion to amend the ϲʿֱ Faculty Senate Constitution (Article III and IV). 2. Motion on Freshman Progress Reports. 3. Motion to amend the ϲʿֱ Faculty Senate By-Laws, Section 1 (ART III: Membership) concerning recall. 4. Motion to approve the Unit Criteria for the Natural Sciences (CNSM). B. Motions Pending: 5. Motion to approve a Certificate and A.A.S. in Construction Trades Technology. 6. Motion to amend the ϲʿֱ Regulations for the Appointment and Evaluation of Faculty "Blue Book". 1:10 III Public Comments/Questions 5 Min. 1:15 IV President's Comments - Abel Bult-Ito 5 Min. President-Elects Comments Paul Layer 5 Min. 1:25 V A. Remarks by Chancellor Jones 10 Min. B. Remarks by Provost P. Reichardt 5 Min. 1:40 VI Guest Speakers A. Claudia Clark and Tim Barnett - 10 Min. Enrollment Management Task Force (Attachment 128/1) (http://www.uaf.edu/enroll/plans/index.html) B. Gwen White, Institutional Research - 10 Min. Performance Based Budget Measures 2:00 VII Governance Reports 5 Min. A. Staff Council Maya Salganek B. ASϲʿֱ -Thom Walker / GSO 2:05 ** Break** 10 Min. 2:15 VIII New Business 30 Min. Motion on the ϲʿֱ Academic Calendar, submitted by Curricular Affairs (Attachment 128/2) B. Motion to override the veto of the amend to the Faculty Senate Bylaws, Section 3, (Article V, Committee, Standing) to establish a "Research Oversight Committee", submitted by Administrative Committee (Attachment 128/3) C. Nominations for President-Elect D. Outstanding Senator of the Year Award nominations (Attachment 128/4) 2:45 IX Discussion Items 15 min. A. Grade distribution and grade inflation, FDAI Committee (Attachment 128/5) 3:00 X Committee Reports 20 Min. A. Curricular Affairs - Rainer Newberry (Attachment 128/6) B. Faculty Affairs - Shirish Patil (Handout) C. Committee on the Status of Women - Jane Weber/Carol Gold (Attachment 128/7) D. Core Review - Doug Schamel (Attachment 128/8) E. Curriculum Review - Rainer Newberry F. Developmental Studies - Joe Mason/Cindy Hardy G. Faculty Appeals & Oversight - Larry Duffy H. Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement Lee Haugen I. Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee Mary Erhlander (Attachment 128/9) J. Unit Criteria - Gary Holton (Attachment 128/10) 3:20 XI Members' Comments/Questions 10 Min. 3:30 XII Adjournment ATTACHMENT 128/1 ϲʿֱ Faculty Senate #128 March 7, 2005 Summary of the Enrollment Management Taskforce Report The Enrollment Management Taskforce was charged to review current recruitment, enrollment, and retention efforts, develop actionable enrollment goals, and consider how to best target enrollment growth by program, region, and demographic characteristics in light of ϲʿֱs strengths and resources. The Taskforce compiled information from school and college deans, Institutional Research, and publications on best practices at other institutions. Because the Taskforce had only two months to complete its work, this report is a first step in what must be an ongoing effort to improve recruitment, enrollment, and retention at ϲʿֱ. Review of current recruitment, enrollment, and retention efforts: Enrollment Management Division has developed good working relationships with some colleges and schools, and this should be expanded to include all colleges and schools. Enrollment Management Division and other ϲʿֱ staff, including those at rural sites, have worked hard to improve enrollment services. We need to expand our efforts to accomplish enrollment management. That will require engagement of the entire ϲʿֱ community. Deans provided enrollment projections through 2010, based mainly on extrapolation of past enrollment. Projections were conservative, and need to be revisited in the context of what can be accomplished if active enrollment management is implemented. No enrollment projections were made for the large group of undeclared (General Program) students, because at present the Taskforce has no basis to make a projection. This group needs to be better characterized and understood. Deans need consistent enrollment data, on a monthly basis, to help them better understand and manage their enrollments. Deans need regularly scheduled meetings with the Dean of Enrollment Management to help them understand and manage their enrollments. There are many retention efforts on campus. There is a need for better communication and coordination, and planning and organization of the efforts around specific retention objectives. Best Practices recommended for ϲʿֱ: Performance based budgeting: Schools and colleges should be rewarded financially for developing and meeting recruitment and retention goals. Improved retention efforts: Taskforce recommendations include improving advising in the colleges and schools and for undeclared students, further assisting students with career planning, providing more timely assistance with academic difficulties, evaluating courses with high failure or dropout rates, and building connections between students and their departments as well as ϲʿֱ as a whole. Enrollment management plans: Specific agreements on future enrollment should be developed between Schools and Colleges and the ϲʿֱ administration. These should include recruitment and retention goals, planned actions to achieve those goals, and ϲʿֱ commitment of needed resources. Targeted recruitment: ϲʿֱ needs to expend more effort to recruit the students that will use the universitys resources effectively. UA Scholars are one such group. ϲʿֱ should carefully examine the question of whether more selective admissions requirements should be implemented. Recommended actions: Immediately, The Dean of Enrollment Management and the deans of the colleges and schools implement a program to increase UA Scholar enrollment at ϲʿֱ. Beginning Spring 2005 and continuing into Fall 2005, Schools and colleges work with the Dean of Enrollment Management and staff to develop enrollment management plans, which will be integrated into a ϲʿֱ plan encompassing the Enrollment Management Division, Student Affairs, the Graduate School, and other relevant campus units. Focused school/college recruitment efforts increase the number of declared majors relative to undeclared majors. Deans review and improve advising processes within each college and school. Deans work with faculty to achieve full participation in the Freshman Progress Reports, and use the reports to trigger advisor contact with the student. Deans and faculty evaluate classes (identified by PAIR) that have the highest failure and dropout rates. The Dean of Enrollment Management, Admissions, Freshman and Transfer Services, and the Deans of CEM and SNRAS increase recruiting of transfer students from community and junior colleges. ϲʿֱ faculty and administration undertake a thorough analysis of the costs and benefits of instituting selective admission requirements for the Fairbanks campus. An enrollment management committee continues to gather, review, and analyze relevant information and provide recommendations to the ϲʿֱ Chancellor. ATTACHMENT 128/2 ϲʿֱ Faculty Senate #128 March 7, 2005 SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS MOTION: ====== The ϲʿֱ Faculty Senate reaffirms that authority for setting the academic calendar traditionally--and for good academic reasons--belongs to the individual MAUs that comprise the University of Alaska. The ϲʿֱ Faculty Senate further reaffirms that substantive changes to ϲʿֱs academic calendar can only be made with the explicit agreement and approval of ϲʿֱs Governance Coordinating Committee; that is, with the implicit approval by ϲʿֱ faculty (through the Faculty Senate), staff (through Staff Council), and students (through ASϲʿֱ). The ϲʿֱ Faculty Senate hereby charges the ϲʿֱ Registrar to not publish a ϲʿֱ academic calendar that has not been approved by ϲʿֱs Governance Coordinating Committee. EFFECTIVE: Immediately RATIONALE: The UA VP for Academic Affairs recently announced a unilateral decision to establish a common start date for all MAUs, which most likely will change ϲʿֱ's start date effective Fall 2006. ϲʿֱ's faculty, staff, and students have not been part of the decision making process. The purpose of this motion is to clarify to all concerned how shared governance is supposed to work. ATTACHMENT 128/3 ϲʿֱ Faculty Senate #128 March 7, 2005 SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE MOTION: ====== The ϲʿֱ Faculty Senate moves to override the veto of the motion to amend Section 3, (Article V, Committees, Standing) of the Bylaws pertaining to membership and adding the Faculty Research Oversight Committee. EFFECTIVE: Immediately RATIONALE: Research is a prerogative of the faculty, therefore it's the Faculty Senate's obligation and right to make recommendations to the Chancellor regarding classified and proprietary research. *** ORIGINAL MOTION: ============= The ϲʿֱ Faculty Senate moves to amend Section 3, (Article V, Committees, Standing) of the Bylaws pertaining to membership and adding the Faculty Research Oversight Committee. [[ ]] = Deletion CAPS = Addition Sect. 3 (ART V: Committees) B. Membership on standing and permanent committees will be for two years except as noted below with the possibility of re-appointment. The initial appointment or re-appointment is made by the Administrative Committee or as specified in the definition of a Permanent Committee and confirmed by the full Senate. [[Senators are limited to serving on a maximum of one standing committee at any one time.]] To provide continuity, terms will be staggered and an initial appointment may be made for one or two years as determined by the Administrative Committee based on need. STANDING 8. Faculty Research Oversight Committee The Faculty Research Oversight Committee shall review all classified and proprietary proposals, grants, and contracts according to the guidelines of the ϲʿֱ Policy concerning Classified and Proprietary Research and advise the chancellor of their compliance or lack thereof with university policy. The committee will publish an annual report on the status of classified and proprietary contracts, grants and proposals at ϲʿֱ to the Faculty Senate. The Faculty Research Oversight Committee will offer changes to the ϲʿֱ policy as needed through periodic reviews occurring no less than once every 5 years. 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 Office of Sponsored Research and a designee of the chancellor as ex-officio members. Committee membership must broadly represent the university community. EFFECTIVE: Immediately RATIONALE: The new ϲʿֱ Policy Concerning Classified and Proprietary Research calls for the Faculty Senate to establish a Faculty Research Oversight Committee to review all proposals and make recommendations to the chancellor for action. The policy includes guidelines for the review process. The number of Faculty Senate committees has increased to a level that may require some of the senators to serve on more than one committee. Therefore, restrictions on committee membership on standing committees are removed. ATTACHMENT 128/4 ϲʿֱ Faculty Senate #128 March 7, 2005 SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OUTSTANDING SENATOR OF THE YEAR AWARD (OSYA) PURPOSE: The Outstanding Senator(s) of the year award is an award to be given by the ϲʿֱ Faculty Senate for truly outstanding contribution of service for academic quality at the University. The contribution to be recognized would be far beyond that normally made by an individual in the normal performance of his or her job. CRITERIA: The recipient should be a serving member of the ϲʿֱ Faculty Senate or a serving member of a permanent or standing committee of the Faculty Senate who has made a major contribution to the faculty's and student's welfare, to the faculty's ability to carry out its duties more effectively, to the general betterment of the University outside the teaching and research function, or has shown wise and courageous leadership (and responsibility) in behalf of the faculty and University. This should be an award for service, not teaching or research, above and beyond that normally expected from an individual. NON-ELIGIBILITY: The President and President-Elect of the Faculty Senate are not eligible to receive this award in their positions during their years of service. PROCEDURES: Any eligible Faculty Senate member may nominate a candidate for the OSYA. The letter of nomination should include a brief list of the Senator's accomplishments and a cover letter that makes the case for the nominee. The nomination should be submitted to the Faculty Senate President by March 21, 2005. The Screening Committee will consist of five members. One member will be appointed from the Provost Council by the Provost. The Faculty Senate will select four (4) members one of whom will be the President-Elect, and three others, none of whom is a nominee, in the March meeting of the Senate. This committee will meet prior to the April meeting of the Senate to screen all applicants and select one or two candidates that are recommended to the Senate President. In the April Faculty Senate meeting, the committee shall move the appropriate resolution(s). After appropriate discussion, the full Senate shall vote by secret ballot on the motions. A simple majority vote of those attending will be necessary for the Senate to confirm an OSYA. The votes will be counted by the President and Secretary of the Senate, and the award is announced by the President of the Senate. The award is to be presented by the President of the Senate and the form of the award shall be a framed, hand-lettered certificate that contains the resolution passed by the Senate and the signatures of the Faculty Senate President and President-Elect. ATTACHMENT 128/5 ϲʿֱ Faculty Senate #128 March 7, 2005 SUBMITTED BY FACULTY DEVELOPMENT, ASSESSMENT & IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE Several months ago the provost asked our committee to review documents relating to grade distribution at ϲʿֱ and report possible recommendations and actions. Initially concerned about grade distribution percentages, the provost requested that we articulate possible explanations or variables that may contribute to the percentages. Below is a summary of the percentages as reported. A=24% B=20% C=14% D=6% F=10% DF/W/I/Audit= 38% Suggestions and explanations of percentages for discussion, additional ideas, and recommendations for further attention. Program changes Type of students recruited Scholarship policies: In graduate programs students are expected to maintain at least a 3.0. Admission policies: Some grades appear high in certain subjects (ex. ED appears high but, students enter as juniors with a 3.0 g.p.a. (one measure) hence the quality of students is high for a professional program) In house competency requirements on performance assessments Institute the plus and minus system to delineate stronger separation of A raise the cutoff for A from 90% to 93%) Small classes provide students with more attention Older, focused, goal oriented student population high DF/ W /I conceals otherwise low grades Secondly, the committee was asked to consider the issue of grade inflation and offer suggestions and recommendations. We chose to address two approaches to the question of grade inflation, an institutional level approach and a departmental/college approach. #1. Institutional level approach If we choose an institutional level approach to grade inflation, in order to proceed, we need a better definition of the problem and therefore additional data. A statistical analysis of the data will help us further define the extent of the problem at ϲʿֱ. Some questions FDAI Sub Committee Grade distribution and grade inflation (Document in progress) What constitutes statistical significance for inflation? Are we in line with national practices? What are the typical patterns at other institutions like ϲʿֱ (national)? Is the 24% listed above as A a high percentage? Need comparative data for cumulative gpa historically to determine trend Need Longitudinal study of grading patterns from 1997 to present Need a break down of the DF/I/W/Audit category Need breakdown without graduate courses. Is grade inflation a faculty perception or an administrative one? What are faculty perceptions of grade inflation at ϲʿֱ/UA? Liberal W/I policyis a W or I grade being substituted for what otherwise would be an unsatisfactory grade? #2. Department/college level approach If we address grade inflation through teaching excellence as a professional development issue then, departments, colleges, and schools would engage in conversations to improve academic standards and expectations. How do we raise academic standards and expectations? (in-house, college, department) Work to develop printed materials/workshops/discussions for faculty regarding expectations and grading Encourage departmental discussions of pedagogy, grading practices and policies Work toward developing performance assessments and develop rubrics to assess student learning. Work to clarify standards for grading within departments, colleges add paragraph to syllabi to indicate grading standards Recommendations All but two members agreed that the issue of Plus and Minus grades should be re-examined now that Banner can handle this type of grading. We would like to suggest that the issue be taken up by Academic Affairs. More data please (Susan and Lee will be asking Institutional Research) ATTACHMENT 128/6 ϲʿֱ Faculty Senate #128 March 7, 2005 SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS Curricular Affairs Committee MINUTES Monday, February 14, 2-3:15 p.m. NSF Runcorn Room Present: Steve Cysewski, Katrin Iken, Jeannette Smith, Yuri Shur, Tim Stickel, Steve Sparrow, Wanda Martin, Rainer Newberry, Joseph Thompson, Carol Barnhardt, Guest Paul Reichardt 1. Brainstorming session RE change in ϲʿֱ start dates( calendar? Paul Reichardt joined us at the start of the meeting. Were it not for the efforts of Paul and a few others, it looks like UA VP Dorman would have (~ 1 week ago) by fiat created a uniform UA Monday starting date beginning Jan 06, completely over-ruling the catalog dates and generally creating a lot of havoc. The faculty senate was essentially informed this is how its going to be. The two issues that immediately came up are: (1) who gave VP Dorman the right to change our academic calendar? and (2) should we move to a UAA-type start date? Relative to the first issue, we agreed that UA administration had clearly overstepped its authority and needed to be scolded. Exactly how to do that was put off initially and we moved to issue #2: should we get a wider ϲʿֱ consensus on the issue of moving to a UAA-type start day? As stated by PaulThe issues are pretty clear: one the one hand we have had different academic schedules in the different communities for good reasons; on the other, we are now probably at the point where a majority of our associate and baccalaureate graduates have at least one course via distance delivery from another MAU (thus having to cope with two schedules for at least one semester). You can argue it either way, but the fundamental question is, "Are we now at a point where 'course-swapping' between campuses is so common that we should try to move toward some coherent system-wide schedule?" The faculty and the folks involved in enrollment services (admissions, registrar) are the ones who need to inform the discussion. We discussed how can the ϲʿֱ community: (1) be informed of the issues and ramifications (2) discuss the issues (3) reach consensus and (4) bring the issues to closure expeditiously? After a lot of discussion with tangential discussions of the + and of moving to an Anchorage start date, the committee decided it would take too much effort to effectively get a ϲʿֱ community consensus over a short (month or two) time frame. Hence, any ϲʿֱ-based decision would need to come from the official representatives of the community, namely the faculty senate, the staff council, and ASϲʿֱ. However, returning to the question of who creates ϲʿֱs academic calendar? the community unanimously agreed: NOT SOME UA VP. Given the general exhaustion of the committee at that point, the question of how to put that thought into a formal motion was left for the next meeting. There were more agenda items, but we left them for our next meeting. -------------------------- Curricular Affairs Committee MINUTES Monday, February 28, 2-3:15 p.m. Present: Steve Cysewski, Katrin Iken, Jeannette Smith, Tim Stickel, Steve Sparrow, Rainer Newberry, Joseph Thompson, Carol Barnhardt, and Mike Earnest 1. Who sets the academic calendar, cont. Rainer compiled emailed responses to a proposed motion, and took a revised version to the admin comm. meeting on Friday 25 Febr. That group agreed with the need to move quickly on the issue. The question of whether a motion or resolution would be the best way to go was debated. A motion creates something; a resolution is a lot of hot air. On the other hand, the Chancellor can (and probably will) sit on a motion for at least a month. With all those comments and suggestions in mind, Rainer prepared the following draft motion: Authority for setting the academic calendar traditionally--and for good academic reasons--belongs to the individual MAUs that comprise the University of Alaska. We re-affirm that substantive changes to ϲʿֱs academic calendar can only be made with the explicit agreement and approval of ϲʿֱs Governance Coordinating Committee; that is, with the implicit approval by ϲʿֱ faculty (through the Faculty Senate), staff (through Staff Council), and students (through ASϲʿֱ). The ϲʿֱ Registrar is hereby charged to not publish a ϲʿֱ academic calendar that has not been approved by ϲʿֱs Governance Coordinating Committee. This motion was unanimously approved by the committee. 2. In order to enroll in a course a student must either earn a grade of C or better in all prerequisite courses or secure the permission of the instructor. We left this 1 month ago with the agreement that Rainer would contact Deans and ask them to get the faculty to weigh in on the issue. Responses received as of 28 February were enclosed. We decided to postpone this discussion until we got more faculty responses 3. The advisor thing, via memo from our fearless leader Can you please forward this to Curricular Affairs and ask them whether the Senate should consider adding an exception clause to the policy that requires a signature of an adviser in the event of exceptional circumstances, like a family emergency. A more general question "Is a signature really necessary because we are dealing with adults?", could be considered as well. Finally, is some variety of advisor electronic notification of signature possible and if so, should it be included in this legislation? (This is in regards to an undergraduate student who is out of town because of a family emergency and personal health problems. This student will now have to download the form, fill it out and either email or fax it to the adviser who then has to sign it and deliver it to the registration office. This is especially a potential problem in limited enrollment courses that require a quick response by the student to ensure enrollment.) faculty were contacted via deans and responses are attached we all agreed that faculty advising is an important part of the education and that oversight during registration was one of the few times when faculty would necessarily be involved. We all agreed that in the electronic age there ought to be a more efficient mechanism beyond signing sheets of paper. Steve & Carol pointed out that THERE EXISTS a better mechanism, but its limited to TVC and SOE: there are people who can allow a student to register without going through the business of tromping down to Signer's Hall. We unanimously agreed: EVERY STUDENT OUGHT TO HAVE THAT SAME OPPORTUNITY!!!!! But how? Should each unit? Building? Department? Or faculty member have the ability to set Banner so a given student can register? We agreed that we needed to think more about that and present a plan at the next committee meeting. The bottom line: there is a better way. We will decide on what it specifically will be and then make sure every faculty member and student knows what it is. 4. RE-defining s designators: Phyllis Morrow put together a select committee to examine the problem and make recommendations to this committee. Jeanette presented 3 options, of which we least disliked the last one: Define s courses as those taught by specific departments that are composed of social science faculty (e.g., Economics, Anthro, Soc, Geogr, etc.) Rainer presented a 1st attempt, plagiarizing the N criteria Content is directly defined by major models or theories of the Social Science disciplines of Anthropology, Economics, Geography, History, Journalism, Justice, Military Science, Political Science, Psychology, Social Work, or Sociology. The committee agreed to work more on this approach, with better defining the disciplines. Once thats done, we agreed to pass it by CLA, SOM, and TVC. Our objective: to have such available well before the end of the semester. 5. Disqualification regulations. As pointed out by Phyllis Im trying to clarify language in the boilerplate letters I send to students on probation and academic disqualification, and discovered what looks like an inconsistency in the system. Apparently, disqualification only happens in the spring. That's the only time that the registrar notifies the colleges of students to be disqualified. So if a student is on academic probation in the fall, s/he has spring semester (one semester total) to raise it. But if a student goes on probation in the spring, s/he has the following fall and spring to raise the GPA. We considered amending the wording so that (a) disqualification is considered after 2 semesters on probation (so it could happen at end of fall AND end of spring) and (b) the basis on which disqualification will occur (current regulations: may). We didnt get far into this, but agreed that students ought to be treated uniformly with regards to disqualification. Another issue for next meeting. It being 3:15 we adjourned. ATTACHMENT 128/7 ϲʿֱ Faculty Senate #128 March 7, 2005 SUBMITTED BY COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN Committee on the Status of Women Meeting Minutes 21 Feb 2005 1-2pm Present: Cindy Hardy, Carol Gold, Qwynten Richards, Charlie Basham, Denise Thorson, Uma Bhatt, Jane Weber, Sheri Layral, Jamie Walker and Christian Gou-Leonhardt. 1) Sheri gave the committee an update. She introduced the two students who will help with the survey analysis, Jamie and Christian. The survey (600 copies) was sent out last Friday morning (2/13) and most of the committee had received it by Saturday. Sheri provided the time line for the survey process: - Reminder for those who have not responded and thank you letter for those who did respond will be sent out in two weeks 3/4/2005 - Two weeks after that a second survey will be sent to non-respondents (3/21/2005, Monday after spring break) It is encouraged to lobby colleagues to answer the survey. Jane will take care of CRA, Carol CLA, Uma IARC/GI, Denise Engineering and we will ask Joan Braddock to encourage CNSM. 2) A representative from our committee is needed for the Chancellor's Diversity Action Committee. This committee is charged with promoting diversity on campus and will consist of staff, faculty, and students. Our committee is to submit two names for this other committee and we need to coordinate our activities. It was discussed to ask the Chancellor to come and meet with the committee so we can let them know what we are doing. Charlie asked what happened to CACNE, Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Native Education. No one could answer this. [It meets once a month; 2/20, 3/24, 4/18.] 3) Charge of our committee. Jane passed out the paragraph describing our charge and we discussed what to focus on next. These charges include - Maintain list of women faculty. We discussed how to get such a list and who should keep track of it. It seemed to make sense to suggest that Governance Office take care of this for us. 4) Analysis that Denise and David began last fall. This data is from Institution Research and they pulled it off of Banner. There is significant historical data there about tenure, promotion, rank etc. Denise will revisit the spreadsheet and next time we meet we will work on crafting questions of interest to us that can be answered by this database. - We discussed if this data is accurate and how can we establish its accuracy. - We would like historical salary information with Gender that goes back about 10 years. Jane will ask Sheri. At next meeting, the three different sets of faculty information will be brought together and we will decide which one we like best and then define questions. It was surmised that Earlina Bowden's data may be the best. Some of the questions include: - Time to tenure, time to full, how many people left ϲʿֱ, term funded faculty gender, term faculty switching to tenure track positions (how many and what gender). 5) Mentoring is another of our charges. There are many mentoring sessions for early career faculty, but little for mid-career mentoring. Joy Morrison and the Provost should be made aware that mid-career mentoring may be desirable. But it will be easier to make a case for this once we have hard data/results from the survey so we will hold off on this. Next meeting 21 March 2005 at 1 o'clock. ATTACHMENT 128/8 ϲʿֱ Faculty Senate #128 March 7, 2005 SUBMITTED BY CORE REVIEW 28 Feb 2005 Core Review Committee Report of Activities Submitted by Douglas Schamel, Chair It has been a quiet month for the Core Review Committee. We held one electronic meeting to consider four petitions. We will discuss the standardization of W and O competencies at a future meeting. ATTACHMENT 128/9 ϲʿֱ Faculty Senate #128 March 7, 2005 SUBMITTED BY GRADUATE ACADEMIC & ADVISORY COMMITTEE GAAC Minutes for Meeting on 8 February 2005 Members Present: Ex Officio Members Present: Mary Ehrlander Dean Susan Henrichs Patty Gray Gayle Gregory Russ Hopcroft Pauline Wilson Catherine Koverola Richard Wies Student Members Present: Bob Bolton Susan Hazlett The entire meeting was spent addressing the proposed Ph.D. in Psychology program. Catherine Koverola began with an overview of the history and process of the development of the program. A state-wide needs assessment confirmed the need for a clinical psychology and community psychology program with an emphasis on indigenous cultures. Both practitioners and researchers are strongly needed in Alaska to address the severe community problems existing. The joint program was developed as a collaborative process between ϲʿֱ and UAA, using APA guidelines. APA does the accrediting for all such programs in America. Each state has its own licensing board, including Alaska. Alaska is the only state without a Ph.D. program in Psychology. No program designed with the 3 mentioned components exists. However, the framework for training practitioner-scientists does exist the Boulder Model developed in 1949 and it was used to develop this program. Regarding the concerns expressed about the amount and quality of the research experience within the program: The research training focuses on methodology a way of thinking. In this clinical research program, there is much structure, because the subjects are human. (Dean Henrichs concurred that clinical psychology is much different than experimental psychology, for instance.) Thus much of the training in doing research is provided through structured courses, rather than having more emphasis on independent research. Catherine stressed that this is the structure for all such APA approved Ph.D. Clinical Psychology programs in the US and that this is the structure for the training that she and all of her colleagues (and all ph.d. psychologists in the US and Canada) had. Questions: Russ Hopcroft: concerns re: logistics and costs of program Dean Henrichs response: there is no question that ϲʿֱ could produce 8 Ph.Ds much less expensively than this program will. Thus, the costs must be seen in terms of state needs addressing the severe community problems within the state. ϲʿֱ has asked for 3 new faculty, and still all of the old graduate courses will be dropped because they wont have enough resources to continue both programs. Catherine: The new faculty will be teaching undergraduate classes, too, and Psych has more students (about 200) than any other department in CLA, by far. Catherine: There will be some overlap between the old and new courses, but the new ones are more intense and geared for Ph.D. students, rather than MA students; furthermore, the new courses are all designed to the specifications of the APA. What will be the costs to students? Catherine: they hope to fully fund all students. They considered requiring super tuition because of the high costs of the program, but they would gain relatively little in doing so and might lose good students. Minority students will be eligible for special funding. Catherine: Psych does pull in much outside funding. Also, theyll get about $200,000 from the Alaska Mental Health Trust (each year?) Susan: President Hamilton is now asking for $2.5 million additional for research for the university. Whether hell get it and how this will affect the Psych program is uncertain. Susan: The financial issues wont be resolved for years because the program will be phased in with funding granted for each year. The possibility exists for each year that the funding wont come through. However, GAAC is charged with evaluating the academic merits of the program, not the financial questions. Mary Ehrlander: Isnt the course load 12.5 13.5 graduate credits per semester very onerous? Catherine: we debated long and thoroughly whether this should be a 5 year or 6 year program and decided on 5 years with summers off, which we understand is very intense, but we thought a 6 year program would discourage too many applicants. Russ: Why can the program only accept 8 students per year? Catherine: because the clinical supervision responsibilities are so heavy and because of the travel involved in clinical placements. We took no action on the program and agreed to return to assessing courses at the next meeting. --------------------------------------- GAAC Minutes for February 22, 2005 Members in Attendance Ex Officio Members Cathy Cahill Dean Susan Henrichs Mary Ehrlander Laura Bender Patty Gray Pauline Wilson Russ Hopcroft Catherine Koverola Graduate Students Richard Wies Susan Hazlett Joan Parker-Webster Bob Bolton Discussion: Susan Henrichs said that she talked to Paul Reichardt and he said that we should not concern ourselves with money / funding issues, except to decide whether the number of faculty requested is reasonable for the program / course load demands. Catherine will give us a breakdown of how faculty members will be used. Currently Psychology faculty have a 5 course teaching load. It will be a 4-course load for core faculty in the Ph.D. program. Theyll be adding 3 faculty members. Bob Bolton had concerns about the method of delivery, noting that video-conferencing isnt always effective. Susan Hazlett said she feels it works well for IGERT. Catherine said they are continuing to look into technology needs to ensure that they have an optimal system for delivery. Susan Henrichs said that Biology Profs in Anchorage will serve as outside examiners there. Shes now using the Anchorage Psychology faculty on biology Ph.D. exams as outside examiners, so there will be reciprocity there. The question was raised about students being able to enter the Ph.D. program without having BAs in Psych, and Catherine said that they anticipate having some strong candidates without BAs in Psych (especially from rural Alaska, because one cannot earn a BA now by distance), so students will be able to do deficiency work or perhaps take a year of undergraduate Psychology work in order to attain admission into the Ph.D. program. Catherine noted that Native elders will be used in the program primarily in two ways: To help students understand indigenous approaches to mental health. To help Native students adjust to being psychology Ph.D.s but also members of their communities. Patty Gray asked about how students could be part of the IGERT program wouldnt this add years to their programs, to make them interdisciplinary. Catherine responded that yes, they anticipated that this approach would take extra years of work and that likely it would be students who did not want to be clinical practitioners who would choose that route. Action Taken on Course Proposals: Blue No. Course No. Action Taken on 2-22-05 41 Psych 602 Approved 45 Psych 606 Approved 52 Psych 632 Approved 53 Psych 633 Approved 54 Psych 639 Approved conditionally (need new syllabus with reference to final essay deleted) 62 Psych 671 Approved Notes: We are waiting for clarifications on syllabi on courses 652, 653, 657 and 659. Catherine is pursuing further information / clarification. We decided in December that all approvals of courses were conditional upon approval of the whole program. ATTACHMENT 128/10 ϲʿֱ Faculty Senate #128 March 7, 2005 SUBMITTED BY UNIT CRITERIA ϲʿֱ Faculty Senate Unit Criteria Committee Report submitted Feb 25, 2005 Gary Holton, chair The UC committee has met twice this year: Jan 26 and Feb 16. Status of proposed UC as follows: MAP approved FITC awaiting format revisions from unit CNS approved No other UC proposals have been received. On Feb 15 the UC chair met with the provost to discuss the issue of evaluation of adjunct faculty. The provost informed the chair that the Deans Council is moving forward with a proposal to evaluate adjuncts in their fifth consecutive year of service. This move is being driven in part by an accreditation requirement that all faculty be evaluated on a regular basis. There are apparently no CBA issues preventing this move. Outstanding questions concern what the review should consist of and how faculty can participate. One concern is that while units such as CLA have regular peer review committees in place, which could handle adjunct review, units within CRA and CDE may not. The UC committee discussed the adjunct evaluation issue further at its Feb 16 meeting. The committee is in principle supportive of the 5-year evaluation cycle and feels that it could potentially be beneficial to faculty. The following suggestions were made: UAF faculty emeriti should be exempted from the process The burden on the faculty member under review should be minimal. Faculty should have the option to contribute materials to a review file but should not be required to do so. A minimal set of relevant materials (IAS scores, teaching evaluations) would be compiled by the dean or director. The review process should include faculty peer review through a committee which makes a recommendation to the dean. Where no peer committee is available (e.g., CDE), the dean/director should appoint a faculty committee for such purpose, with approval of the senate. The faculty member being reviewed should have a formal opportunity to respond to both peer and dean reviews, and these responses should be part of the record. The criteria for determining the 5th consecutive year of service must be made explicit. Some concern was expressed by the committee that certain adjuncts are missing from the current list while other should not be on it. The UC committee will work together with the Deans Council and representatives of CLA and CRA to further develop this process. The committee feels it crucial to involve adjunct faculty in the development of this process. The UC committee also discussed the issue of evaluation of non-represented faculty. The faculty positions in this group are something of a mixed bag, with some being more administrative and some being more like faculty. Each will have to be handled differently. This seems to be beyond the scope of the UC committee. We recommend that a relevant committee, such as FAO, examine each position individually to determine whether it should be evaluated via the regular faculty review process or as an additional Group C administrator process. Those positions to be reviewed as faculty could be reviewed according to the current regulations. The committee also discussed the participation of Co-op faculty in the Biology & Wildlife peer review process. The committee is supportive in principle of this idea and is awaiting a formal proposal from the unit before drafting changes to current regulations. Future UC meetings are scheduled April 6 and April 27 at 9:00 am in Brook 108. Vb   F G | /UVWI&@[*####$8$Ͽ~~hh hq>*OJQJhh hq5OJQJhh hqB*OJQJphhh hq6OJQJhh hq5CJOJQJhh hqOJQJ hq;hq!h_hblB*CJOJQJph!h`hblB*CJOJQJph hbl5>*hbl+-@TUVbAYZ5 vp0]v^p`0$a$5 e  : ; k  H | , - Q ^`gdq ^` ^`Q P x !]pr@SD ]^ ]^` 0]^`0 ^` & FDR/GUVWIy & Fxx$@&a$] ^`L@ h M!!q"####] & Fx & Fx hx@&^h & Fxx & Fx####$$ $$$$$/&0&&&&&&x(y(z({(|(}((( 0^`0gdq7$8$gdqgdq]8$'y(|(}((((())**.'.*.A2{444c9:??B????ZDDDD^EEEEEEFFFIIIIMMMMMM׽׽׽׽hqB*OJQJph hq5>* hqCJhq5>*OJQJhq5OJQJhqOJQJhhq; hq>* hq;hq!h\@hqB*CJOJQJph%h{)hqB*CJOJQJaJph2(((((())))******++++. x^` 8Tpp^p` & p@ P !0]^`0gdq]..(.).S.00A2B2D2^23g4h4i4{4]x^x xX^x`Xgdq`gdq x0^`0 x xD^`D x$a$ pp^p` 8Tpp^p`{444444445A6B6N6888T9U9c9::k<l< > >? ? ??'$a$$a$]?4?B????AAAAA%A7A8AAAA9BCKCCCC,DYDZD]Eh^h & F^]]E^EEFFFFFFGEGGG HJHyHHHIIIIIJJDKKK & F & F$K5LlLmLnL~LQMMMMMMMMMM!NYNZNOOROO~QQRR|U$a$] & F & FM!NYNdNOOOEOFOROOOPRR|UU?XMXX.Y/YLY{YYYYY;Z*OJQJ\^J$ jh`hq6OJQJ\^Jh`hqOJQJ^Jh`hq6OJQJ\^Jh`hqOJQJh`hq5OJQJ\^J$|UU;V* h#|hqh#|hq>*h#|hq5 hq6hq hq>*'Jƃ\]ʄ مgghs=؉Ɋʊ ‹09 & F & F & F & F & F & F9:rsԎŏƏ78cőӑ<=$a$gdq]^ & F=I;&ɔC!җ(lΘb3456XYؚgdq & Fgdq & Fgdq]wx wxy͜ΜϜԩ]gdq# 0P/ =!"#$%|HH(EG(HH(d'`@(D@D NormalCJOJQJkH'mH sH tH F@F Heading 1$@&5>*CJOJQJ<@< Heading 2$@&OJQJP@P Heading 3$<@&5CJOJQJaJP@P Heading 4$<@&5CJOJQJaJDA@D Default Paragraph FontZiZ  Table Normal :V 4 l4a _H(k(No List 4 @4 Footer  !4@4 Header  !.)@. Page Number.O". sp3 OJQJkH'LO2L Headings$da$5CJOJQJkHROBR Paragraph$hd`ha$CJOJQJkHRORR agenda+ <"]^`JObJ CINDY 0]0^ OJQJkH'POrP index! p !x#$)|]| 5>*CJDOD page number2CJOJQJkH'hOqh index2; px#$)<,$|)00]0^`05>*ZOZ index heading l !x#$)|]|5CJ6U@6 Hyperlink >*B*phTS@T Body Text Indent 3 ^ OJPJQJTC@T Body Text Indent`^``OJQJ>Q@> Body Text 3xCJaJJ>@J Title$^a$5OJPJQJ\_H<Z@< Plain Text OJ QJ aJDB@D Body Text !7$8$H$ OJQJaJ\^@"\ Normal (Web)"dd[$\$B*OJQJ_HaJph>'@1> Comment ReferenceCJ@@B@ Comment Text$ OJQJ_HDRD  Balloon Text%CJOJQJaJ<O< Continuing&xOJQJ@P@r@ Body Text 2'$a$OJQJSS%zzzzzzzz z z z z zzzzzzzzzz ~"(j. 9AGKS ajsw!ygʼnґzuS) 2   8  QV-@TUVbAYZ5e:;kH|  ,-QPx!]pr @ S  D R      / G U V W IyL@ hMq / 0 x"y"z"{"|"}""""""""####$$$$$$%%%%(((()(S(**A,B,D,^,-g.h.i.{......../A0B0N0222T3U3c344k6l6 8 89 9 9949B9999;;;;;%;7;8;;;;9<=K====,>Y>Z>]?^??@@@@@@AEAAA BJByBBBCCCCCDDDEEE5FlFmFnF~FQGGGGGGGGGG!HYHZHIIRII~KKLL|OO;PY>Z>]?^??@@@@@@AEAAA BJByBBBCCCCCDDDEEE5FlFmFnF~FQGGGGGGGGGG!HYHZHIIRII~KKLL|OO;P0>>DDDD58&ϳ!49JJJJѰʰʰSSSSSի;4dM$ `;e}FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:Governance OfficeU AF                            Oh+'0   < H T `lt|'FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:PGovernance OfficeNormalU AFl2AFMicrosoft Word 11.0@F#@"b@W/$@W/$k ՜.+,0 hp  ' Governance EM FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT: Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstvwxyz{|}~Root Entry F#1Tableu`WordDocumentSummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjXObjectPool## FMicrosoft Word DocumentNB6WWord.Document.8