The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #56 on
March 20, 1995.
MOTION PASSED (Unanimous approval)
==============
The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend its Bylaws Sec. 3 (Article
V- Committees) Permanent 8 to read as follows:
8. The Faculty Appeals AND OVERSIGHT Committee shall be
composed of TWO [[one]] tenured faculty members, ELECTED
[[selected]] from each college/school and confirmed by the
Faculty Senate, who shall serve for a two year term. Members'
terms will be staggered to provide continuity. THIS COMMITTEE
WILL FUNCTION AS AN APPEAL BODY FOR ISSUES OF FACULTY
PREROGATIVE, OVERSEE EVALUATION OF ACADEMIC
ADMINISTRATORS, AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE
PROVOST OR CHANCELLOR.
Committee members shall CONSTITUTE [[serve as]] a hearing
panel pool to serve as needed on grievance hearing panels.
A promotion/tenure appeals subcommittee composed of five
tenured faculty will hear all promotion and/or tenure
reconsideration requests and report its findings to the
Chancellor according to ÌÀÄ·ÊÓƵ
Regulations, Section IV,B,4.
EFFECTIVE: Immediately on Chancellor's approval
RATIONALE: The current faculty appeals committee
has a narrow charge. There is no appropriate faculty-
governed process to consider issues such as: student
grade appeals; student actions against faculty;
challenges to academic freedom; faculty appeals of
dismissals, non-retentions, and administrative
decisions; and faculty initiated actions against other
faculty or faculty governance. This committee will
also provide a representative body of senior faculty
to oversee the evaluation of administrators, which
has previously been carried out on an ad hoc basis.
This committee is not designed to replace the
current University Wide Grievance Council but rather
to create a forum to resolve issues of faculty
prerogative or faculty appeal. It is hoped that this
forum would resolve some issues before they reach
the Grievance Council.
This committee and the UAF Faculty Senate will
develop procedures for the appeal and administrative
evaluations. Appropriate University regulations
governing the function of this committee will be
formulated.
Signed: Colin Read, President, UAF Faculty Senate Date: 3/22/95
Approved: Joan Wadlow, Chancellor Date: 3/27/95
-------------------------------------------------------------
The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #56 on
March 20, 1995.
MOTION
=======
Additions in CAPS
Deletions in brackets (( ))
4. The Developmental Studies Committee will INCLUDE ((be))
one representative from each of the following units:
Northwest Campus, Chukchi Campus, Kuskokwim Campus,
Bristol Bay Campus, INTERIOR-ALEUTIANS Campus, the College
of Natural Sciences, the ((Math)) English, MATHEMATICAL
SCIENCES, and Cross Cultural Communications Departments,
the ((General and)) Developmental Studies DIVISION
((Department)) of the COLLEGE OF RURAL ALASKA, ((Rural
College, Interior Campus)) RURAL STUDENT SERVICES, AND THE
ADVISING CENTER; and two representatives from the TANANA
VALLEY CAMPUS ((School of Career and Continuing Education)).
((Additionally, there shall be one non-voting representative
each from Rural Students Services and from the Advising
Center.)) THE DEVELOPMENTAL STUDIES COMMITTEE SHALL
CONSIDER POLICIES CONCERNING DEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATION:
PROGRAMS, COURSES, INSTRUCTIONAL DEVELOPMENT,
EVALUATION, AND ASSESSMENT. This Committee will function
as a curriculum council review committee for all
developmental studies courses. Discipline based
developmental courses will ((first)) be reviewed by the
appropriate college curriculum council before submission to
this committee for review and coordination
EFFECTIVE: Immediately upon Chancellor's Approval
RATIONALE: Several rural campuses have undergone name
changes and the college of Rural Alaska has undergone a
name change and an internal restructuring since these
bylaws were modified. Additionally, committee
members believe it inappropriate for Rural Student
Services and the Advising Center to be restricted to non-
voting membership. Finally, this change identifies those
areas of responsibility which have been a part of this
committee since its initial formation in 1987 but which
had not been formally incorporated into these bylaws.
Signed: Colin Read, President, UAF Faculty Senate Date: 3/22/95
Approved: Joan Wadlow, Chancellor Date: 3/27/95
-------------------------------------------------------------
The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its meeting #56 on
March 20, 1995.
MOTION PASSED (1 Nay)
===============
The UAF Faculty Senate moves to adopt the following Grade Appeals
Policy:
GRADE APPEALS POLICY
I. Introduction
The University of Alaska is committed to the ideal of academic
freedom and so recognizes that the assignment of grades is a
faculty responsibility. Therefore, the University administration
shall not influence or affect an assigned grade or the review of an
assigned grade.
The following procedures are designed to provide a means for
students to seek review of final course grades alleged to be
arbitrary and capricious. Before taking formal action, a student
must attempt to resolve the issue informally with the instructor of
the course. A student who files a written request for review under
the following procedures shall be expected to abide by the final
disposition of the review, as provided below, and may not seek
further review of the matter under any other procedure within the
university.
II. Definitions
A. A "grade" refers to letter grades A, B, C, D, F and Pass. The
NB (no basis) and I (incomplete) designators are not grades
and, therefore, are not subject to appeal.
B. For the purpose of this procedure, "arbitrary and capricious"
grading means:
1. the assignment of a course grade to a student on some
basis other than performance in the course, or
2. the assignment of a course grade to a student by
resorting to standards different from those which
were applied to other students in that course, or
3. the assignment of a course grade by a substantial,
unreasonable and unannounced departure from the
instructor's previously articulated standards.
C. "Grading errors" denotes errors in the calculation of grades
rather than errors in judgment.
D. All references to duration in "days" refers to university
working days, which exclude weekends, holidays and days
in which the university is officially closed.
E. "Department head" for the purposes of this policy denotes
the administrative head of the academic unit offering the
course (e.g., head, chair or coordinator of an academic
department).
III. Procedures
A. Errors by an instructor in determining and recording a grade
or by the university staff in transcribing the grade are sources
of error that can be readily corrected through the student's
prompt attention following the normal change of grade
procedure.
1. It is a student's obligation to notify the instructor of
any possible error immediately by the most direct means
available. If this is through an oral conversation and/or
the issue is not immediately resolved, it is the student's
responsibility to provide the instructor with a signed,
written request for review of the grade, with a copy to
the unit department head and the dean of the college or
school in which the course was offered.
2. Notification must be received by the instructor and/or
department head within 20 days from the first day of
instruction of the next regular semester (i.e., fall
semester for grade issued at the end of the previous
spring semester or summer session; spring semester for
grade issued at the end of the previous fall semester).
3. The instructor is responsible for notifying the student
in writing of his or her final judgment concerning the
grade in question within 10 days of receipt of the
request, and for promptly submitting the appropriate
change of grade form to the Director of Admissions and
Records if an error occurred.
4. If the student does not receive a response from the
instructor or the unit department head by the required
deadline, the student must seek the assistance of the
dean of the college or school in which the course was
offered.
5. If the instructor is no longer an employee of the
university or is otherwise unavailable, the student
must bring the matter to the attention of the unit
department head who will make every effort to contact
the instructor.
a. If the instructor can not be contacted but course
records are available, the department head may
correct a grading error through the regular change
of grade process on behalf of the instructor.
b. If the instructor can not be contacted and course
records are either unavailable or indecisive, the
student may request a review following the
procedure outlined below.
6. there may be extenuating circumstances when the
deadlines cannot be met due to illness, mail disruption,
or other situations over which the student may have no
control. in such a case, upon request from the student,
the dean of students, after review of supporting
documentation provided by the student, may recommend
to the grade appeals committee that the deadlines be
adjusted accordingly. an extension of the deadline will
be limited to one semester but every effort should be
made to complete the appeal process within the current
semester.
B. If no such error occurred, the remaining option is by review
for alleged arbitrary and capricious grading, or for instances
where the course instructor is unavailable and satisfaction
is not forthcoming from the appropriate department head.
1. This review is initiated by the student through a signed,
written request to the department head with a copy to
the dean of the college or school in which the course was
offered.
a. The student's request for review may be submitted
using university forms specifically designed for
this purpose and available at the Admissions and
Records Office.
b. By submitting a request for a review, the student
acknowledges that no additional mechanisms exist
within the university for the review of the grade,
and that the university's administration can not
influence or affect the outcome of the review.
c. The request for a review must be received no later
than 45 days after the first day of instruction in
the next regular semester (i.e., fall semester for
grade issued at the end of the previous spring
semester or summer session; spring semester for
grade issued at the end of the previous fall
semester).
d. The request must detail the basis for the allegation
that a grade was improper and the result of
arbitrary and capricious grading and must present
the relevant evidence.
2. It is the responsibility of the department head to
formally notify both the instructor who issued the grade
and the dean of the unit's college or school that a request
for a review of grade has been received.
3. The dean will appoint a 5 member review committee
composed of the following:
a. One tenure-track faculty member from the
academic unit in which the course was offered
(other than the instructor of the course).
b. Two tenure-track faculty members from within
the college or school but outside of the unit in
which the course was offered.
c. One tenure track faculty member from outside
the college or school in which the course was
offered.
d. At the option of the student whose grade is being
reviewed, the fifth member to be appointed by the
dean will be a student or another tenure track
faculty member outside the college or school in
which the course was offered.
e. The campus judicial officer or his/her designee
shall serve as a nonvoting facilitator for grade
appeals hearings. This individual shall serve in
an advisory role to help preserve consistent
hearing protocol and records.
4. The committee must meet within 10 days of receipt of
the student's request.
a. During this and any subsequent meetings, all
parties involved shall protect the confidentiality
of the matter according to the provisions of the
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)
and any other applicable federal, state or
university policies.
b. Throughout the proceedings, the committee will
encourage a mutually agreeable resolution.
c. At this meeting, the committee will rule on the
validity of the student's request. Grounds for
dismissal of the request for review are:
1) This is not the first properly prepared
request for appeal of the particular grade.
2) The actions of the instructor do not
constitute arbitrary and capricious grading,
as defined herein.
3) The request was not made within the policy
deadlines.
4) The student has not taken prior action to
resolve the grade conflict with the
instructor, as described under section III, A.
d. In the event that the committee votes to dismiss
the request, a written notice of dismissal must
be forwarded to the student, instructor,
department head and dean within five days of the
decision, and will state clearly the reasoning for
the dismissal of the request.
5. Acceptance for consideration of the student's request
will result in the following:
a. A request for and receipt of a formal response from
the instructor to the student's allegation.
b. A second meeting scheduled to meet within 10 days
of the decision to review the request.
1) The student and instructor will be invited to
attend the meeting.
2) The meeting will be closed to outside
participation, and neither the student nor
instructor may be accompanied by an
advocate or representative. Other matters of
format will be announced in advance.
3) The proceedings will be tape recorded and
the tapes will be stored with the campus
Judicial Officer.
4) The meeting must be informal, non-
confrontational and fact-finding, where both
the student and instructor may provide
additional relevant and useful information
and can provide clarification of facts for
materials previously submitted.
6. The final decision of the committee will be made in
private by a majority vote.
a. The committee is not authorized to award a grade
(letter or pass/fail) or take any action with regard
to the instructor.
b. Actions which the committee can take if it accepts
the student's allegation of arbitrary and capricious
grading must be directed towards a fair and just
resolution, and may include, but are not limited to,
the following:
1) direct the instructor to grade again the
student's work under the supervision of the
department head,
2) direct the instructor to administer a new
final examination and/or paper in the course,
3) direct a change of the student's registration
status (i.e., withdrawn, audit, dropped) in the
course.
c. A formal, written report of the decision must be
forwarded to the student, instructor, department
head, dean and Director of Admissions and Records
within five days of the meeting.
d. The decision of the committee is final.
EFFECTIVE: Beginning of Fall Semester 1995
RATIONALE: No such formal appeals process currently
exists. This has lead to inconsistencies in the handling
of such cases.
Signed: Colin Read, President, UAF Faculty Senate Date: 3/22/95
Approved: * Joan Wadlow, Chancellor Date: 3/31/95
*In signing this I want to emphasize two points:
1. The grade appeals policy fills a very serious gap in UAF
procedure and I am pleased that the Senate acted and appreciate the
efforts that resulted in its development.
2. Experience may suggest format revisions. Yet I hope that
meanwhile the committee exercises its full authority in the last
provision to secure a "fair and just resolution"; this provision
authorizes the committee to take actions beyond those that are
specifically listed. For example, the committee might find it
desirable to appoint a faculty peer committee to grade the student's
work again. And, the committee might also want to include in its
written report any conclusion that the instructor's action was
unethical and possibly illegal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #56 on
March 20, 1955.
MOTION (PASSED AS AMENDED - (4 Nays)
==========================
Amendments in CAPS
The UAF Faculty Senate moves to accept the proposal on Featured
Faculty.
POLICY AND PROCEDURES FOR TEACHING RECOGNITION AT UAF
PREAMBLE
UAF is creating the UAF Featured Faculty as its way of recognizing
and certifying teaching excellence within the institution. While UAF
endorses and encourages the granting of awards to outstanding
teachers, it also wishes to recognize teaching excellence in a way
which emphasizes performance relative to explicit criteria rather
than the competitive comparisons which are inherent in award
programs. Thus, election to the Featured Faculty will identify a
faculty member as an excellent teacher as determined by criteria
rather than by comparison to peers. The Featured Faculty will, in
addition to providing recognition for faculty, become an important
part of UAF's efforts to maintain and improve the quality of
instruction within the institution.
Faculty at the ÌÀÄ·ÊÓƵ may be recognized for
exemplary teaching practices when their teaching performance for
at least three years demonstrates consistently high-quality
instruction and this performance quality is confirmed by students,
colleagues within their unit, supervisor, Dean or Director and
Provost. Faculty selected to be recognized for exemplary teaching
practices shall receive a Certificate of Teaching Excellence
Recognition and will be given membership in the UAF Featured
Faculty. The membership term will be five years. Newly elected
members serve the following calendar year as "Featured Faculty of
UAF". Other faculty will be encouraged to observe the teaching
practices of Featured Faculty for one month during the calendar year
after appointment. The purposes of these awards shall be to
improve teaching, recognize high quality teaching, and further
develop and support faculty collegiality.
Procedures:
A. Teaching Excellence Recognition, UAF Featured Faculty
Faculty interested in applying for the UAF Featured
Faculty shall initiate the process by submission of a
letter and support materials to Department Heads.
Faculty with an average of 4 or higher over the last
three years on any or all of the items: I-1, I-3, or I-4 of
the Student Opinion of Instruction (SOI), or "very good"
or higher on this or other comparative measures, are
strongly encouraged to apply.
Any student, faculty, or staff member may nominate a
faculty member for consideration by submitting the
nomination to the faculty member's supervisor. The
supervisor shall inform the faculty member of his/her
nomination and encourage him/her to apply according to
procedures described in 1.A.
1. Faculty Application Procedures
a. Letter shall indicate
1) Interest of the faculty member in being
considered for the award.
2) Agreement to serve the following
calendar year as Featured Faculty.
3) Reasons for being considered for this
honor, including personal teaching
strengths, areas of significant teaching
improvement, successful connection of
research and teaching, and/or record of
course/curriculum/pedagogy development.
b. Support materials shall include:
1) Documentation of student evaluation
of instruction through student opinion
of instruction measures and/or letters
of support or other evaluative instruments.
2) Copies of two letters of support for
exemplary teaching from peer review of
teaching and support materials during
the prior three years.
2. Selection Procedures:
a. SUPERVISORS SHALL REVIEW THE SUBMITTED
REQUESTS, ADD ANY RECOMMENDATIONS OR
COMMENTS, AND FORWARD THE SUBMISSIONS
TO THE DEAN OF THE COLLEGE OR SCHOOL
BY OCTOBER 25 ANNUALLY.
b. DEANS SHALL REVIEW THE SUBMITTED
REQUESTS, ADD ANY RECOMMENDATIONS OR
COMMENTS, AND FORWARD SUBMISSIONS
TO THE FACULTY SELECTION COMMITTEE
BY NOVEMBER 15 ANNUALLY.
c. THE FACULTY SELECTION COMMITTEE
SHALL SELECT FEATURED FACULTY AND
ANNOUNCE SELECTIONS TO THE PROVOST
BY DECEMBER 15.
d. PROVOST SHALL REVIEW THE REQUESTS
APPROVED BY THE COMMITTEE OF THE
FACULTY AND ANNOUNCE APPOINTMENTS
TO FEATURED FACULTY.
e. AFTER SELECTION IS COMPLETED,
APPLICATION FILES WILL BE RETURNED
TO CANDIDATES.
B. Featured Faculty procedures
1. Faculty Expectations:
Faculty receiving UAF Featured Faculty Membership shall
serve as Featured Faculty at UAF during the following
calendar year.
a. Faculty shall serve as Featured Faculty for
1 month during the calendar year following
their award.
b. Faculty shall admit peers interested in
observing their teaching practices during the
month they are featured on the Featured
Faculty calendar. Faculty will select the
month during which they will serve and will
notify the coordinator.
c. Faculty shall have the right to refuse peer
observation when there is unavailable space
or it is deemed inappropriate (hazardous,
confidential, other).
d. Faculty shall make every effort to support
the intent of peer observations, by providing
observation opportunities to at least 3 peer
faculty members making such requests,
during their agreed-upon month of service.
e. Faculty shall agree to serve as Featured
Faculty in the spirit of improving
collegiality, providing mentor opportunities
to others, and improving teaching practices.
2. Peer observation expectations:
Peer faculty interested in observing a Featured Faculty
member(s) shall for the purpose of improving their own
teaching practices, shall exhibit every consideration to
the instructional environment, Featured Faculty member,
and students.
a. Peer faculty interested in observing must
contact the Featured Faculty member to
arrange an appointment to observe during
their month of service.
b. Faculty who observe a peer shall honor and
comply with all ethical and professional
expectations, as outlined in the Code of
Ethics of the Education Profession, State
of Alaska, and expected of a professional
faculty member.
3. Supervisor expectations:
Featured Faculty may decline to be observed for purposes
of evaluation during the agreed-upon month of service to
peer faculty.
Signed: Colin Read, President, UAF Faculty Senate Date: 3/22/95
Approved: Joan Wadlow, Chancellor Date: 3/31/95
-------------------------------------------------------------
The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #56 on
March 20, 1995.
MOTION PASSED (Unanimous approval)
==============
The Faculty Senate moves to establish the following path for
approval of unit criteria for promotion and tenure.
1. New unit criteria or changes to established criteria are
submitted to the Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on
Unit Criteria.
2. The Committee either returns the criteria to the unit
for suggested changes, or approves the criteria and
forward them to the Provost for approval. The Provost
returns the criteria to the Committee, either asking
for suggested changes or approving them. If they are
not returned within thirty days they will be assumed
to have been approved.
3. Upon return from the Provost, the Committee brings
the unit criteria to the Faculty Senate for approval,
and then on the Chancellor for final approval.
EFFECTIVE: Immediately on Chancellor's approval
RATIONALE: Unit Criteria have been stranded repeatedly
over the last several years, partly because no clear
path of approval has been in place. This procedure
should make it possible to finally resolve the issue
of supplementary unit criteria for promotion and tenure.
Signed: Colin Read, President, UAF Faculty Senate Date: 3/22/95
Approved: Joan Wadlow, Chancellor Date: 3/27/95
-------------------------------------------------------------
The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #56 on
March 20, 1995.
MOTION
=======
The UAF Faculty Senate endorses a Faculty Compensation Plan based
on national average salaries for appropriate disciplines at
comparable institutions as determined by nationally published
salary surveys.
Signed: Colin Read, President, UAF Faculty Senate Date: 3/22/95
-------------------------------------------------------------
The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #56 on
March 20, 1995.
MOTION
=======
The UAF Faculty Senate endorses the Outreach Working Group's
"Definition, Criteria, and Evaluation of Service" with the
modification that we do not accept paid consulting in excess of
appropriate expenses as consistent with public service.
Signed: Colin Read, President, UAF Faculty Senate Date: 3/22/95
-------------------------------------------------------------
The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its meeting #56 on
March 20, 1995.
MOTION
=======
The UAF Faculty Senate endorses the following Pay Raise Proposal
and formula.
PAY RAISE PROPOSAL
STEPS IN RANK 1 2 3 4 5 6
YRS IN RANK 1,2 3,4 5,6 7,8 9,10 11,12
FORMULA
ASSISTANT 1.00 1.04 1.08 1.12
ASSOCIATE 1.20 1.24 1.30 1,35 1.38 1.40
FULL 1.40 1.46 1.51 1.57 1.64 1.70
1. These step increases are to reflect increased faculty
experience and are in addition to regular cost-of-living
increases as provided by the Board of Regents.
2. Assistant Professors shall receive a 4% longevity increase for
each step corresponding to every two years of university
service (assuming a satisfactory or better evaluation.)
3. Upon promotion to Associate Professor, the faculty members
will receive a salary of 20% higher than the base starting
Assistant Professor salary.
4. Upon promotion to full professor, the faculty member will
receive a base salary of 40% higher than the base starting
Assistant Professor salary.
5. Associate Professors must be promoted to full Professor by
their 12th year as Associate Professors or forego additional
step increases.
6. Full Professors receive a 2% step increase after their 12th
year at rank as full Professors.
7. All steps refer to appropriate, discipline based starting
salaries.
Signed: Colin Read, President, UAF Faculty Senate Date: 3/22/95
-------------------------------------------------------------
The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its meeting #56 on
March 20, 1995.
Resolution of the Faculty Senate of UAF Regarding Increasing the
Land Grant for UAF
WHEREAS, the ÌÀÄ·ÊÓƵ is the land grant
institution for the State of Alaska, and
WHEREAS, the concept of utilization of a land grant is to provide a
source of revenue for support of the University's activities and
to provide for research and intellectual opportunities as a
model for land use and resource utilization for each state, and
WHEREAS, historically the ÌÀÄ·ÊÓƵ has on
several occasions attempted to secure an appropriately sized
land grant to enable it to accomplish all of the above, and the
accomplishment of this land grant has been disrupted on many
occasions in our history, and
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Alaska has recently
examined the question and reviewed legislative acts calling
for the increase in the ÌÀÄ·ÊÓƵ' land
grant, and
WHEREAS, the original concept of a land grant was intended to
provide for a continuing utilization and disposition of typically
a percentage of all transferred lands from the Federal
Government to the State, and
WHEREAS, this amount of land in Alaska should justifiably be one
million acres, and several attempts have been made
historically to achieve a land grant of this size, and
WHEREAS, conditions for finally obtaining our land grant have not
been better in a long time,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the University of Alaska
Fairbanks Faculty Senate endorses the concept of increasing
the Fairbanks land grant to one million acres, as in the best
interest of the University, its students, and the future of
Alaska, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the ÌÀÄ·ÊÓƵ'
Faculty Senate urges the Legislature to pursue full transfer of
title to its land grant to the University at the earliest possible
date.
Signed: Colin Read, President, UAF Faculty Senate Date: 3/22/95
UA