The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #21 on
October 15, 1990:
MOTION PASSED AS AMENDED (15 ayes, 12 against)
===========================
The UAF Faculty Senate moves to establish a 14-week instructional
period for the Fairbanks campus with provision for an additional
examination period during each semester.
EFFECTIVE: Fall 1991
RATIONALE: The rational for the 14 week semester was
based on the discussions relative to the original motion,
and reestablishes the status quo of three years ago.
Feedback from the Chancellor and from students
indicated the need for a separate examination period,
which was not provided for in the original motion
approved by the Senate and modified by the Chancellor.
Signed: John Leipzig, President, UAF Faculty Senate Date: 10/16/90
Approved: Patrick J. O'Rourke, Chancellor Date: 11/16/90
N.B. The examination period is in addition to the 14 weeks of instruction.
PJO'R
-------------------------------------------------------------
The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #21 on
October 15, 1990:
MOTION PASSED (unanimous approval)
===============
The UAF Faculty Senate moves to request that the additional
instructional days that will occur as a result of a 14-week
instructional period be placed at the beginning of the fall semester
and at the end of the spring semester.
EFFECTIVE: Fall 1991
RATIONALE: This will allow for a sufficient vacation
period during the Christmas break.
Signed: John Leipzig, President, UAF Faculty Senate Date: 10/16/90
Approved: Patrick J. O'Rourke, Chancellor Date: 11/16/90
N.B. To the extent that this is possible it will be done. In finally
balancing the calendar, there is a degree of trade off that is needed
between the beginning and end of a semester. (PJO'R)
------------------------------------------------------------
The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #21 on
October 15, 1990:
MOTION PASSED (unanimous approval)
==============
The UAF Faculty Senate moves to refer to Curricular Affairs the
motion to amend the academic credit hour policy from a minimum of
800 minutes of instruction to a minimum of 840 minutes of
instruction and to review the 50 vs. 60 minute hour options for
delivery of those contact minutes.
EFFECTIVE: Immediately
RATIONALE: With an anticipated increase in the length
of the semester, the University now has the opportunity
to examine the issues of how much time is needed to
deliver courses.
Signed: John Leipzig, President, UAF Faculty Senate Date: 10/16/90
-------------------------------------------------------------
The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #21 on
October 15, 1990:
MOTION PASSED AS AMENDED (unanimous approval)
===========================
The UAF Faculty Senate moves to establish the following policy
defining the role and duties of the department head, and to establish
the procedures for the election of department heads at the
ÌÀÄ·ÊÓƵ:
The following is a description of the role and duties of the
department head, and procedures for the election of department
heads at the ÌÀÄ·ÊÓƵ. The size and
composition of departments and programs are defined by each
individual college and school.
I ROLE OF THE DEPARTMENT HEAD
A. The department head is the administrative and academic
officer of the department and as such has the primary
responsibility and authority for: (1) leadership in developing
high quality academic programs which fulfill department,
college, and university objectives; (2) leadership in the
implementation of college and university policies and
programs at the department level; (3) leadership in developing
resource requests and an appropriate departmental budget; and
(4) service on the college/school executive committee.
B. The department head is first a faculty member. The
department head is primarily a teacher-scholar serving as a
leader of his/her department colleagues. The department head
is a role model for faculty responsibility.
C. The department head is responsible for providing mechanisms
and processes for members' participation in discussion and
decision making within the department. All members of the
department should be informed of these mechanisms and
processes. Regular meetings should be held for purposes of
communicating information, discussing issues, and making
decisions on department matters.
D. The department head is expected to communicate faculty
perspectives and concerns to the administration and other
segments of the community as appropriate. The department
head is the primary spokesperson for the faculty of the
department. The department head will also convey
administration views and concerns to the faculty.
II DUTIES OF THE DEPARTMENT HEAD
The department head is responsible, either directly or by delegation,
for performance of at least the specific duties enumerated below
(the duties are not prioritized).
A. Academic Programs
1. Initiate, plan, oversee implementation of, and review
the preparation and offering of the academic program,
after appropriate involvement of members of the
department and consultation with the dean.
2. Ensure interdepartmental coordination and cooperation.
3. Take leading role in ensuring academic program quality.
4. Ensure reports are prepared as needed. ENSURE THAT
COURSE SCHEDULES ARE PREPARED IN A TIMELY MANNER.
(A. PJO'R)
5. Ensure catalog is current.
6. Supervise departmental office and ensure that files and
records are maintained.
7. Keep the dean informed of departmental and faculty
activities. Act as a liaison with the University
community.
B. Personnel
1. Coordinate and evaluate professional activities of all
members of the department, to include providing
guidance to faculty concerning expectations regarding
promotion and tenure. Provide periodic evaluation of
faculty performance in accordance with ÌÀÄ·ÊÓƵ promotion
and tenure policy. REQUEST AND OBTAIN FACULTY
ACTIVITY REPORTS AS APPROPRIATE TO THIS PROCESS.
(B. PJO'R)
2. Provide recommendations for appointments, promotion,
sabbatical leaves, tenure and release of faculty after
consultation with members of the department.
3. Assign, with faculty consultation, workload in
accordance with UNIVERSITY, college/school policy.
(C. PJO'R)
4. Take lead role in departmental faculty and staff
recruitment and retention.
5. Provide for the management and supervision of support
staff.
6. Appoint appropriate committees within the department.
7. Facilitate support for faculty teaching, research and
service activities.
8. Function as spokesperson and advocate for the
department, both within and outside the University
community.
C. Students
1. Administer the departmental student advisement
program and counsel students.
2. Recruit students in cooperation with other members of
the department and the dean.
3. Act on student petitions.
4. Provide for the management of student assistants.
5. Address student concerns as appropriate.
D. Budget, Inventory, Facilities, Etc.
1. Initiate resource and budget requests with
justifications.
2. Maintain fiscal control of departmental budgets.
3. Serve as a voting member of the college/school
budget/executive committee.
4. Ensure upkeep of equipment and facilities assigned to the
department.
III ELECTION AND TERMS OF SERVICE OF THE DEPARTMENT HEAD
A. Departments Involved
The procedures will apply to every unit that is considered a
department.
B. Eligibility to Vote
All full-time faculty members holding academic rank who are
affiliated with the department are eligible to vote. Visiting
faculty who are in an academic rank position are eligible to
vote.
C. Eligibility to be Nominated and Serve as Department Head
Only tenured members of a department who are eligible to vote
are eligible to be nominated and serve as department head.
Only in exceptional circumstance, where the majority of the
department faculty feel that options are severely limited,
should there be deviation from this policy.
D. Procedures for Elections & RATIFICATION (D. PJO'R)
1. By March 15, those faculty in the department who are
eligible to vote will establish a list of nominees for
department head. The names of the nominees will be
placed on an official secret ballot for the department and
distributed from the dean's office to those faculty
eligible to vote.
2. Faculty members eligible to vote but who are absent
because of sabbatical leave, leave of absence, or for
other official reasons will be provided with an absentee
ballot.
3. Secret ballots are to be cast and. the person receiving a
simple majority of the votes cast will be elected. In the
case of a tie which cannot be resolved by the voters, the
dean shall select the department head from those faculty
involved in the tie vote.
4. If no nominee receives a simple majority of the votes, a
run-off election of the top two nominees shall be held
immediately under the same procedures outlined above.
The deadline for accepting ballots for the run-off
election will be the last working day prior to April 15.
5. IF RATIFIED BY THE DEAN, Official appointment of the
elected department head will be made by the dean by May
[[1.]] 15. (D. PJO'R)
E. Term of Elected Department Head
A department head shall serve for a term of two years,
beginning July 1, following his/her election. The department
head may continue in the position indefinitely by a simple
majority of the voting faculty of the department, AND THE
RATIFICATION OF THE DEAN. (D. PJO'R)
F. Non Ratification of Election, Grievance, Vacancies, Recall
1. In the event a dean does not ratify the department's
election of a department head, the dean shall discuss the
reasons in writing with the department and hold another
election no later than May 1. In the event an impasse
develops, final authority to appoint an acting department
head for one year shall rest with the Vice Chancellor for
Academic Affairs.
2. If an action of the department head is appealed by a
simple majority of the eligible voting members of the
department and the issue cannot be resolved within the
department, the matter shall be referred to the dean for
arbitration. If necessary, the dean will refer the matter
to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. (See
Section F.5. for recall procedure.)
3. If the department head's position becomes vacant due to
RESIGNATION, unexpected prolonged leave, illness, death,
or other [[emergency]] circumstances, the dean shall
appoint a department faculty member to act as
department head. An election to fill this position will be
held the following April 15. (E. PJO'R)
4. The department head shall appoint an acting department
head whenever their absence from the department is for
a period of less than two months. If this absence extends
beyond two months, the procedure defined in Section F.3.
above is to be followed.
5. Election of a new department head may be requested by
petition to the dean signed by three-quarters of the
eligible voting members of the department OR BY THE
PETITION OF THE DEAN TO THE DEPARTMENT, APPROVED
BY 3/4 OF THE VOTING MEMBERS OF THE DEPARTMENT.
After the election BY THE FACULTY AND RATIFICATION BY
THE DEAN, the new department head will take office
immediately and serve the unexpired term. (F. PJO'R)
[[G. Compensation
Department heads' compensation will be based upon a number
of factors which include length of the department head's
faculty appointment, size of the department, and the
complexity of its program. In recognition of the amount of
time required to perform in the service component, release
time at a minimum of one course per semester, as well as a
minimum of one month's additional salary, shall be provided as
compensation for all department heads. In cases of larger
departments or extraordinary workload, additional
compensation may be necessary.]] (H. PJO'R)
EFFECTIVE: Upon Chancellor's Approval
RATIONALE: The University has evolved considerably since
the last policy and procedures for department heads was
promulgated in 1971. That evolution has evidenced a
need for certain amplification and clarification of the
original document. In addition, a change in perspective
of the document, more in consonance with the concept of
faculty governance, was needed.
Signed: John Leipzig, President, UAF Faculty Senate Date: 10/16/90
Approved with Modifications indicated: Patrick J. O'Rourke, Chancellor
Date: 11/15/90
A. Indicates responsibility for course scheduling.
B. Establishes dep't heads responsibility and authority for
obtaining these reports. This has been an issue with some
faculty in the past.
C. Workload must also be in accordance with University policy.
D. Clarifies that there is ratification required by the dean.
E. Most frequent cause of vacancy is resignation.
F. Again clarifies the ratification process and allows dean to
initiate removal, if necessary.
G. Allows 2 additional weeks for department and dean to work
out differences, should they occur.
H. Deleted this section for the following reasons:
1. Compensation policies are set by the Board of Regents on
a statewide basis. Thus, such a policy requiring dollars
rather than release time would have an impact on UAA &
UAS as well. Such a policy should be advanced through
the General Assembly.
2. There is a monetary impact caused by this section which
UAF could not meet. I estimate approximately $387.0
would be required for implementation.
3. Two course releases per year plus one month's salary is
excessive for some small departments.
4. Requirements for paying additional salary limits future
flexibility for departmental configurations due to
financial considerations.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #21 on
October 15, 1990:
MOTION PASSED AS AMENDED (unanimous approval)
===========================
The UAF Faculty Senate moves to postpone the deadline for course
and program changes affected by the written communication
guidelines for "w" classification, oral communication guidelines for
"o" classification, and revisions to the degree requirements affected
by implementation of the new core curriculum. These course and
program changes must be submitted to the Faculty Senate no later
than 5:00 p.m., Friday, November 30, 1990.
EFFECTIVE: Upon Chancellor's Approval
RATIONALE: An extension in catalog deadlines has been
granted to provide additional time for preparation and
approval of core-related course and program changes.
Signed: John Leipzig, President, UAF Faculty Senate Date: 10/16/90
Approved: Patrick J. O'Rourke, Chancellor Date: 10/22/90
-------------------------------------------------------------
The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #21 on
October 15, 1990:
MOTION PASSED (unanimous approval)
===============
The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve the following guidelines
for oral communication intensive courses:
1. GENERAL GUIDELINES:
a A minimum of 15% of the final course grade should be based
on effectiveness of oral communication. This minimum is proposed
so that a student's failure to attend to the oral communication
aspects of his or her work in an "O" designated course will have an
important effect on his or her final grade for the course, while at
the same time not overshadowing the importance of subject matter
mastery.
b. Attention to oral communication in "O" designated courses
must be developmental, in that students need the opportunity (i) to
receive intermediate instructor assistance in developing
presentational competency, (ii) to utilize their communication
competency across the span of the semester, not just in a final
project, and (iii) to receive instructor feedback on the success of
their efforts at each stage.
c. Exceptions to these guidelines may be made by the [[CLA]]
CORE Curriculum COMMITTEE [[Council]] because of unique
circumstances in individual departments.
2. SPECIFIC GUIDELINES FOR "O" DESIGNATED COURSES EMPHASIZING
ORAL COMMUNICATION IN PUBLIC CONTEXTS:
a. Each student must be involved in the individual preparation
and delivery of at least 3 course related presentations of at least 5
minutes duration each, to an audience of at least 12 persons. **
b. At least one presentation must involve questions from the
audience and responses by the presenter.
c. All presentations must have a clear introduction-body-
conclusion organization, appropriate to the discipline.
d. All presentations should receive evaluation by the
instructor on oral communication competency (including
responsiveness to audience questions), as well as on subject
mastery.
e. Students must receive, as part of the course structure,
information/instruction on effective speaking, on organization of
material for effective presentation, and on development and use of
media and visual aids.
3. SPECIFIC GUIDELINES FOR "O" DESIGNATED COURSES EMPHASIZING
ORAL COMMUNICATION IN GROUP CONTEXTS:
a. Each student must be involved in at least one ongoing group
project or team of 5 to 8 members, with the group spanning 4 to 7
weeks duration. Group projects must be a coordinated, integrated
effort by the group members, not simply 5 to 8 individual projects
put together.
b. Each student must present both an intermediate and a final
presentation on an aspect of the group's work during the span of the
project or team.
c. Both presentations must be at least 5 minutes in length,
must be given to an audience (e.g., the rest of the class), must be
integrated with the presentation of the other group members, and
must include additional time for a question and answer period.
d. Each presentation should receive evaluation by the
instructor on oral communication competency, as well as on subject
mastery. In addition, the instructor should evaluate the degree of
coherence in the overall presentation of the entire group. Students
should receive both an individual and group grade for the
presentation.
e. Students must receive, as part of the course structure,
information/instruction on how groups function most effectively, on
organization of material for effective presentation, and on
development and use of media and visual aids.
4. SPECIFIC GUIDELINES FOR "O" DESIGNATED COURSES EMPHASIZING
ORAL COMMUNICATION IN TECHNICAL PRESENTATION CONTEXTS:
a. Each student must be involved in the preparation and
delivery either of 2 or more course related presentations of at least
20 minutes duration each or of 3 or more presentations of at least
10 minutes duration each. It is highly desirable and strongly
encouraged for the benefit of the student that one of the
presentations be to an audience of 12 or more. The remaining
presentations need to be to an audience of 5 or more. It is also
desirable that the presentation to the larger group be given in a
large auditorium and involve the use of a public address system.
b. All presentations must involve question and answer
interaction with at least one assigned respondent, with questions by
other audience members encouraged.
c. In a course with 3 presentations, it is highly desirable that
one of the three presentations be video-taped, either in or outside of
class. Such video taped presentations need to involve at least the
presenter and the respondent, and must be viewed by these
individuals with the instructor present to provide feedback on oral
communication effectiveness in the presentation and response.
d. For individual presentations that relate to a common theme
or project, it is highly desirable that the presentations be organized
in a panel format, with a student moderator.
e. All presentations must have a clear introduction-body-
conclusion organization, appropriate to the discipline.
f. At least one presentation must involve the development and
use of appropriate visual aids, and it is desirable that all
presentations do so.
g. All presentations should receive evaluation by the
instructor on oral communication competency (including
responsiveness to audience questions), as well as on subject
mastery.
h. Students must receive, as part of the course structure,
information/instruction on effective speaking, effective responding,
organization of material for effective presentation, and on
development and use of media and visual aids. If thematic panels are
used, students should also receive instruction on panel/symposium
and moderator techniques.
** Research in Speech Communication, as well as in Social
Psychology, shows that in interaction with groups smaller than 10-
11 persons, communicators are able to keep track of others as
individual persons and to adjust their communication efforts
accordingly, much as they do when interacting with only one or two
others. In groups of 10-11 or more individuals, this ability rapidly
diminishes, so that 12 persons is a recognized minimum audience for
developing the competencies needed in public communication
contexts, as opposed to those required in small group communication
contexts.
EFFECTIVE: Upon Chancellor's Approval
RATIONALE: This motion will place into policy the course
guidelines necessary to meet the oral intensive
requirements for the core.
Signed: John Leipzig, President, UAF Faculty Senate Date: 10/16/90
Approved: Patrick J. O'Rourke, Chancellor Date: 10/20/90
*Please note modification to section 1C.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #21 on
October 15, 1990:
MOTION PASSED (with 1 nay)
===============
The UAF Faculty Senate moves to establish a core review
subcommittee of Curricular Affairs which will review core courses
after the courses have been reviewed by the appropriate curriculum
councils. This subcommittee will replace the CLA and CNS
curriculum councils in reviewing courses for oral, written, and
natural science core classification.
EFFECTIVE: Upon Chancellor's Approval
RATIONALE: Such a subcommittee can ensure the
appropriate discipline expertise, and is considered a
more appropriate review body.
Signed: John Leipzig, President, UAF Faculty Senate Date: 10/16/90
Approved: Patrick J. O'Rourke, Chancellor Date: 10/22/90
-------------------------------------------------------------
The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #21 on
October 15, 1990:
MOTION PASSED (unanimous approval)
===============
The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve the Master of Arts in
Northern Studies degree program.
EFFECTIVE: Upon Board of Regents Approval
RATIONALE: See program proposal
Signed: John Leipzig, President, UAF Faculty Senate Date: 10/16/90
Approved: Patrick J. O'Rourke, Chancellor Date: 10/25/90
-------------------------------------------------------------
The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #21 on
October 15, 1990:
MOTION PASSED (unanimous approval)
===============
The UAF Faculty Senate moves to refer to the Faculty Affairs
committee the proposed policy and regulation on intellectual
properties. The committee will include in their deliberations the
following concerns expressed by Graduate Council.
The UAF Faculty Senate moves to recommend approval of the
proposed policy and regulation on intellectual properties with the
following comments:
1. Section B.2. says the University President may appoint an
Intellectual Property Officer, but Section B.3. says the
Intellectual Property Committee will be composed of the
Intellectual Property Officer and five faculty members. This
inconsistency should be clarified.
2. Section C.l. says that exemptions to assign inventions and
patents to the university may be authorized but it is not clear
who will authorize the exemptions. This should be clarified.
3. In Section C.3., it is recommended that the chart showing the
share distribution of net royalty proceeds be moved up in the
paragraph, to just after the sentence which ends with ". . . as
shown below."
4. Concern was expressed about the share of royalty income
allocated to the inventor; an increase in the inventor's share
would provide further incentive.
5. Concern was stated about the title "Intellectual Property
Officer'' being an odd expression.
6. The Graduate Council recommends that the policy be adopted,
with the proviso that it be funded within current fiscal and
administrative resources and personnel.
EFFECTIVE: Immediately
RATIONALE: This motion allows for the Senate to
disseminate this proposal more widely throughout the
faculty.
Signed: John Leipzig, President, UAF Faculty Senate Date: 10/16/90
-------------------------------------------------------------
The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #21 on
October 15, 1990:
MOTION PASSED (with 1 nay)
===============
The UAF Faculty Senate moves to refer to Curricular Affairs for
further review the Board of Regents' statement of intent regarding
credit transfer.
EFFECTIVE: Immediately
RATIONALE: Curricular Affairs has been concentrating
on policy items regarding implementation of the new
UAF core curriculum which has prevented the committee
from addressing other issues, such as the BOR statement
of intent regarding credit transfer.
Signed: John Leipzig, President, UAF Faculty Senate Date: 10/16/90
-------------------------------------------------------------
The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #21 on
October 15, 1990:
MOTION PASSED (unanimous approval)
===============
The UAF Faculty Senate moves to confirm the incoming membership
of the University-wide Promotion and Tenure Committee as follows:
Susan Henrichs (93)
Associate Professor, Marine Sciences
School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences
Rainer Newberry (91)
Associate Professor, Geology
College of Natural Sciences
Ruiz Anne Rozell (93)
Associate Professor, Culinary Arts
School of Career and Continuing Education
Dennis Stephens (93)
Associate Professor, Library Science
College of Liberal Arts
EFFECTIVE: Immediately
RATIONALE: The University-wide Promotion and Tenure
Committee is composed of nine members, serving
staggered three-year terms. The Senate must confirm
the three new members, who were elected by faculty in
their respective school. Also, Claron Hoskins, CNS
representative, resigned from the committee, and his
replacement requires confirmation.
Signed: John Leipzig, President, UAF Faculty Senate Date: 10/16/90
-------------------------------------------------------------
The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #21 on
October 15, 1990:
MOTION PASSED (unanimous approval)
==============
The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend Section 3 (ARTICLE V:
Committees) E., PERMANENT, 7. of the Bylaws as follows:
(( )) = deletion
CAPS = addition
7. The Legislative AND FISCAL Affairs Committee
will follow LEGISLATIVE AND FISCAL issues which
may impact faculty concerns at the university and
will act as a faculty advocate with legislators and
candidates.
EFFECTIVE: Immediately
RATIONALE: The Senate needs to be kept informed of
University budget matters. As the Legislative Affairs
Committee is already tracking budget issues through
its work with legislative items, adding budget
responsibilities to this committee's charge is more
efficient than establishing a new committee.
Signed: John Leipzig, President, UAF Faculty Senate Date: 10/16/90
-------------------------------------------------------------
The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #21 on
October 15,1990:
RESOLUTION PASSED (unanimous approval)
===================
The UAF Faculty Senate moves to endorse the recommendations of
the Ad Hoc Committee on Quality Review of Programs.
Committee Members:
F.M. Husby, SALRM, Chair
John Daly, SCCE
John Olson, CNS
John Whitehead, CLA
Nag Rao, CRA
This committee agrees with the concept of a formal external
evaluation of program quality in the University of Alaska System but
feels that the present form of the document needs some additional
statements to broaden the scope of review and to address some
concerns of the faculty.
As presented, the document needs both clarification and direction
before implementation and action. Prior to further input by the
faculty, the document should be written as a policy statement to
represent the whole University of Alaska system. Minor details
should be omitted from the policy statement (i.e., item D., sentence
2 "given a list of questions" approved by the Board of Regents) but
implemented later by members of the specific campus or unit
administration and faculty senate.
The policy statement should include:
1. The need for the initial evaluation to be of the statewide
system (including statewide administrative structure) to
review structure, program duplication and the need for
program development.
2. A review that covers the three campuses as one system
and then each campus and its individual program
structure.
3. Retain options for individual campuses, units and faculty
senate to be actively involved in selecting the review
boards or accrediting bodies.
4. Specify the groups or individuals that will be responsible
for the final decision to accept or reject the evaluation.
In addition to the above, concern was expressed as to the frequency
and cost of reviews. The university budget should include an
increment for the cost of bringing in outside accrediting boards
from other than the unit under evaluation. The frequency of reviews
would also increase the cost to the university system. The Board of
Regents and administration should be aware of all potential long
term costs to the system prior to accepting or rejecting an
evaluation that would create major budget demands.
Signed: John Leipzig, President, UAF Faculty Senate Date: 10/16/90
UA