ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:

         Sheri Layral

         312 Signers' Hall

         474-7964   FYSENAT

 

 

A G E N D A

ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ FACULTY SENATE MEETING #125

Monday, November 1, 2004

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 #122 &  #123

(/uafgov/faculty/fsfy04meetings/fsfy04meet.html)

                  C.      Adoption of Agenda

 

1:05  II        Status of Chancellor's Office Actions           5 Min.

         A.      Motions Approved:

         B.      Motions Pending: 

1.            Motion to amend Bylaws to add the Faculty

Research Oversight Committee

 

1:10 III       Public Comments/Questions                        5 Min.

 

1:15  IV      President's Comments - Abel Bult-Ito           5 Min.

 

1:20  V       A.      Remarks by Provost P. Reichardt       10 Min.

                  B.      Remarks by Vice Chancellor Jake Poole 10 Min.

 

1:40  VI      Guest Speakers

                  A.      Rich Caulfield, Master Planning Committee 15 Min.

                  B.      David Leone, FNSB Transportation    10 Min.

 

2:05  VII     Governance Reports                                    5 Min.

         A.      Staff Council � Josh Steadman                  

         B.      ASÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ -Thom Walker / GSO

 

2:10           ** Break**                                                10 Min.

 

2:20  VIII     New Business                                           40 Min.

A.            Motion to establish policy on Acceptable Degrees,

submitted by Curricular Affairs, Unit Criteria, Faculty

Appeals & Oversight Committee (Attachment 125/1)

B.            Motion to recommend change to BOR Policy 10.05.03

on residency requirements for undergraduate degrees,

submitted by Curricular Affairs (Attachment 125/2)

C.            Motion to amend the ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ Emeritus Policy, submitted

by Faculty Affairs (Attachment 125/3)

D.            Motion to amend the Graduate Credit Registration

Requirement, submitted by Graduate Academic &

Advisory Committee (Attachment 125/4)

E.             Motion on Deficiencies for Graduate Students,

submitted by Graduate Academic & Advisory

Committee (Attachment 125/5)

F.             Motion to amend the Cooperative Ph.D. requirements,

submitted by Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee

(Attachment 125/6)

G.            Resolution in Support of BOR Policy changes and Draft University Regulation 03.01.01 - Faculty, Staff and Student Governance (Attachment 125/7)

H.            Nomination for President-Elect

 

3:00  IX       Committee Reports                                   20 Min.

         A.      Curricular Affairs - Rainer Newberry (Attachment 125/8)

         B.      Faculty Affairs - Shirish Patil (Attachment 125/9)

         C.      Committee on the Status of Women - Jane Weber/Carol Gold (Attachment 125/10)

         D.      Core Review - Doug Schamel

         E.      Curriculum Review -

         F.      Developmental Studies - Joe Mason/Cindy Hardy

                  (Attachment 125/11)

         G.      Faculty Appeals & Oversight - Paul Layer/Michael Pippenger    (Attachment 125/12)

         H.      Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement �

                  Lee Haugen

         I.       Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee � Christa Mulder/Mary Erhlander  (Attachment 125/13)

         J.       Unit Criteria - Gary Holton (Attachment 125/14)

 

3:20  X       Members' Comments/Questions                 10 Min.

 

3:30  XI       Adjournment

 

 

------------------------------
ATTACHMENT 125/1

ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ Faculty Senate #125

November 1, 2004

SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS, FACULTY APPEALS & OVERSIGHT, AND UNIT CRITERIA

 

 

MOTION:

=======

 

Upon recommendation of the Curricular Affairs, Faculty Appeals & Oversight, and the Unit Criteria Committees, the ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ Faculty Senate moves to establish a Policy on the Identification and Use of Invalid Academic Degrees.

 

 

EFFECTIVE:          Immediately

 

RATIONALE:         Preservation of ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ�s integrity as a degree-granting institution is very important.  A significant aspect of ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ�s academic integrity is the assurance that ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ students, staff, faculty, and administrators only claim possession of valid academic degrees.  In the last decade, unregulated degree 'suppliers' have become rampant.   Definition and regulation of the use of invalid academic degrees and academic credits at ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ is therefore necessary.

 

Reputable organizations exist that research and evaluate the quality of academic oversight for degree suppliers and publish lists of accredited degree-granting institutions and non-accredited degree suppliers.  For ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ to create its own �degree evaluation� program is neither necessary nor worthwhile.  Rather, ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ should depend on outside agencies for such evaluations.

 

Reputable organizations include:

�      U.S. Department of Education, which evaluates foreign and domestic accrediting agencies.

�      Oregon Office of Degree Authorization, which is charged by the State of Oregon to identify non-legitimate degree suppliers.

�      American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, which annually publishes a CD of world-wide accredited degree-granting institutions.

�      World Education Services, which (along with the AACRAO) provides evaluations of foreign degrees.

 

 

***

 

 

THE FOLLOWING DEFINITIONS AND REGULATIONS CONSTITUTE THE ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ POLICY ON THE IDENTIFICATION AND USE OF INVALID ACADEMIC DEGREES:

 

1.  A valid academic degree is one issued by a legitimate degree-granting institution.   An invalid academic degree is one issued by any other organization or person.

 

2.  For the purposes of determining competency of accrediting agencies, ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ only recognizes those foreign and domestic accrediting bodies that have been approved by the U.S. Department of Education.  A list of non-approved �accrediting� bodies will be posted on the Provost�s web site (see Attachment I).

 

3.  A legitimate degree-granting institution is one that is accredited by a competent and qualified accrediting agency and consequently listed in the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers International Registry of degree-granting institutions.  All other organizations and persons, especially those specifically listed as unacceptable by the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization, are recognized by ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ as suppliers of invalid academic degrees and invalid academic credits.  A list of suppliers of invalid degrees and credits will be posted on the Provost�s web site.

 

4.  An individual who possesses a degree or credits defined by the above criteria as invalid can over-rule this determination if (s)he can obtain a transcript evaluation made by either (a) the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers or (b) the World Education Services that states the degree in question is in fact equivalent to a degree granted by an accredited U.S. institution.  A copy of this transcript evaluation should be filed with the individual�s Dean.

 

5.   Only valid academic degrees and credits earned from legitimate degree-granting institutions may be used for the purposes of credit transfer, hiring, promotion, or tenure at ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ.   

 

6.  Employees and students of the ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ who possess academic degrees defined as invalid by ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ are forbidden to indicate that they possess such degrees in any official ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ context, including --but not limited to-- ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ classes, ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ syllabi, ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ web sites, and at meetings where they are identified as ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ employees or ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ students.  "Indicating� one possesses a degree includes --but is not limited to-- using the title "Dr." or other degree-related title before one's name or listing the degree abbreviation (e.g., B.S., M.S., PhD) after one's name.

 

7.  The list of suppliers of invalid degrees and credits, posted on the Provost�s web site (Attachment II), is to be updated annually by the Faculty Senate Curricular Affairs Committee.   Additions to this list are to be based on (a) the listing of invalid degree suppliers provided by the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization and (b) names of any additional degree suppliers that do not appear in the annual �American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers International Registry� and come to the attention of the ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ Registrar or Admissions Office. 

 

  

------------------------------
ATTACHMENT 125/2

ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ Faculty Senate #125

November 1, 2004

SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS

 

 

MOTION:

======

 

The ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ Faculty Senate moves to recommend the Board of Regents eliminating specific Residency Requirements from BOR Policy 10.05.03 and move them to University Regulations with changes proposed as follows:

 

[[  ]] - Deletion

CAPS - Additions

 

Residency Requirements   P10.05.03

 

In order to satisfy the residency requirements for the degree or certificate program from which a student wishes to graduate, students will be required to earn specified numbers of credits from the university or community college offering the program.  [[These requirements for undergraduate degrees will be:

 

Associate degree

15 credits

 

Bachelor's degree

30 credits overall

24 upper division credits

12 credits in the major ]]

 

SPECIFIC [[More]] residency credit requirements to meet program accreditation standards SHALL [[may]] be established BY THE PRESIDENT IN REGULATION following THE recommendation OF [[by the]] program faculty and the Chancellor. [[and approval by the President.]]

 

If a program is delivered collaboratively, credit from each participating institution will be counted toward fulfillment of residency requirements. Residency requirements will be specified in catalogs.

 

(05-07-81, revised 02-16-96)

 

 

Proposed Regulation   R10.05.03

 

Residency Requirements

 

Certificate and Associate degrees

15 credits taken at UA

 

Bachelor�s degree

at least 30 credits taken at UA

21 upper division credits must be taken at UA, of which

at least 15 credits must be taken at the degree granting MAU

         12 credits in the major taken at UA

 

         EFFECTIVE:          Immediately

 

         RATIONALE:         The purpose of the proposed change is to allow transfer students more flexibility in their schedule and especially allow more flexibility for students transferring between MAUs of the University of ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ. 

 

 

------------------------------
ATTACHMENT 125/3

ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ Faculty Senate #125

November 1, 2004

SUBMITTED BY FACULTY AFFAIRS

 

 

MOTION:

=====

 

The ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ Faculty Senate moves to amend the ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ Regulation for Emeritus Status as follows: 

 

CAPS - Additions

[[  ]]  - Deletions

 

 

Emeritus Status

 

A.    A full-time faculty member who has already attained the rank of full professor and who has retired after a minimum of ten years at the University of ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ immediately prior to retirement [[is eligible for consideration as an]] MAY BE HONORED THROUGH APPOINTMENT AS PROFESSOR emeritus [[professor]].  Nominations for  [[the]] CONFERRING emeritus STATUS [[professor must]] originate with the APPROPRIATE DEAN IN CONSULTATION WITH THE FACULTY, OR WITH THE faculty.  IF THE NOMINATION ORIGINATES WITH THE FACULTY, IT SHALL BE THE APPROPRIATE PEER REVIEW COMMITTEE.  RECOMMENDATIONS ARE FORWARDED TO THE CAMPUS PROMOTION COMMITTEE TO BE EVALUATED ON THE BASIS OF THE CRITERIA FOR PROMOTION TO THE RANK OF FULL PROFESSOR WITH THE ADDED CAVEAT THAT THE POSITION OF PROFESSOR EMERITUS IS THE HIGHEST HONOR THAT IS BESTOWED UPON A RETIRING FACULTY MEMBER.  [[The process may be initiated by *any three faculty members, one of whom must belong to the retiree's primary academic unit, for review by the appropriate dean. The dean, in consultation with the retiree's primary academic unit, will make ]]  THE COMMITTEE'S recommendations WILL BE MADE to the Provost who will then forward his/her recommendations to the Chancellor[[. The Chancellor's]] WHOSE decision is final and non-reviewable.

 

B.    In exceptional circumstances, the Chancellor, or in the case of statewide administration employees, the President, may confer emeritus status on other meritorious employees who have provided a minimum of ten (10) years of faithful service of high quality to the institution. Recommendations will proceed along the appropriate administrative channels to the Chancellor or President.

 

C.    The Board of Regents may confer emeritus status upon a retiring President of the University.

 

D.    Privileges available to emeritus employees include the following:

 

   1. Listing in the appropriate university directory and catalog.

   2. Invitations to major university functions.

   3. [[Mailing]] Notices of campus functions and social gatherings.

   4. Use of library, gymnasium, and food facilities on the same basis as active employees in their category.

   5. Access to ELECTRONIC MAIL, laboratories, office space at the discretion of the dean or director, AND/OR research [[and/or electronic communication]] facilities (where such access is available at no charge to the university and does not displace other faculty and/or students).

   6. Free parking permit (UPON APPLICATION TO THE APPROPRIATE PARKING FACILITIES SERVICE). 

   7. Receipt of aN [[permanent]] identification card.

   8. Waiver of tuition for courses in which they themselves are enrolled.

 

E.    Upon appointment to emeritus status a retiring employee shall be designated by the proper title Emeritus/Emerita.

 

[[* nominations must have the support of three faculty]]

 

EFFECTIVE:          Immediately

 

RATIONALE:        These changes provide a more rigorous review of nominations and bring the ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ Regulations in line with Regents' Policy & Regulations. 

 

 

------------------------------
ATTACHMENT 125/4

ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ Faculty Senate #125

November 1, 2004

SUBMITTED BY GRADUATE ACADEMIC & ADVISORY COMMITTEE

 

 

MOTION:

======

 

The ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ Faculty Senate moves to amend the policy on Graduate Degrees - General University Requirements - Registration Requirement (p. 166, 2004-2005 ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ catalog), as follows:

 

CAPS - Additions

[[   ]] - Deletions

 

Registration Requirement

Graduate students must be registered for at least six [[graduate]] credits per year (fall, spring, summer) IN GRADUATE OR 400-LEVEL COURSES RELEVANT TO THE GRADUATE DEGREE, while actively working toward a degree. Those who wish to temporarily suspend their studies should obtain an approved leave of absence. Students who do not register or obtain a leave of absence will be dropped from graduate study and will have to be reinstated before resuming graduate studies.

You must be registered for at least 3 graduate credits in the semester in which you receive your degree and you must apply for graduation in that semester.

 

 

EFFECTIVE:          Fall 2005

 

RATIONALE:         This addresses an inconsistency in the ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ Graduate School policy regarding the minimum registration requirement of 6 credits per year. 

 

ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ policy states that credits from both 600-level and 400-level courses may be used toward graduate degrees at ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ.  Some graduate programs require specific 400-level courses as part of the graduate degree requirements.  Graduate programs may set their own limits on the number of 400-level courses that may be counted toward the graduate degree. 

 

ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ policy also requires that graduate students register for a minimum of 6 credits per year.  However, the policy refers to �graduate courses�, thus excluding 400-level courses from eligibility.  The revised policy will allow graduate students to use relevant 400-level courses to fulfill the minimum registration requirement of 6 credits per year.

 

 

------------------------------
ATTACHMENT 125/5

ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ Faculty Senate #125

November 1, 2004

SUBMITTED BY GRADUATE ACADEMIC & ADVISORY COMMITTEE

 

 

MOTION:
======

The ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ Faculty Senate moves to amend the policy on Deficiencies for Graduate Students (p.166, 2004-2005 ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ catalog) as follows:

CAPS  - Additions
[[   ]] - Deletions


 Deficiencies

 

Your advisory committee may require that you [[correct]] REMEDY certain deficiencies in your program. Your committee will determine early in the program BOTH how to remedy the deficiencies and the minimum level of performance required of you. [[Such courses may be taken under the credit/no credit option, by audit, or through credit by examination.]] GRADED UNDERGRADUATE COURSES TAKEN TO REMEDY A DEFICIENCY MUST RECEIVE A GRADE OF �B� OR BETTER. Deficiency courses are not listed on the Advancement to Candidacy form.

EFFECTIVE:          Fall 2005

 

RATIONALE:         This motion will clarify ambiguities in the current requirements regarding deficiencies. Since deficiencies may be remedied in other ways besides taking courses, and since these other ways are at the discretion of the Advisory Committee and the Department, removing the sentence in brackets will prevent students from being misled into thinking they may select one or the other method as an option at their own discretion. Adding the sentence about the minimum grade of B will prevent students from assuming they must merely pass a course at the lowest level in order to remedy a deficiency, and makes the requirement equivalent to that of undergraduate courses taken for credit toward the graduate degree (B or better).

 

 

------------------------------
ATTACHMENT 125/6

ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ Faculty Senate #125

November 1, 2004

SUBMITTED BY GRADUATE ACADEMIC & ADVISORY COMMITTEE

 

 

MOTION:
=======

The ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ Faculty Senate moves to amend the current Cooperative Programs policy (p.166-67, 2004-2005 ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ catalog) by adding the following statement:

CAPS - Additions
[[   ]] -  Deletions

Cooperative Programs

Some students may develop cooperative programs using specific courses from other universities before being admitted to graduate study at ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ. As part of the application process, the cooperative program must be included in an approved Graduate Study Plan (GSP) (see page 167). The student must complete a minimum of 12 semester credits in residence at ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ, in addition to thesis and research.

 

The following guidelines are for collaborative Ph.D. graduate studies across all UA academic units [[:]]  SOME INDIVIDUAL DEGREE PROGRAMS HAVE DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS WHICH ARE INCLUDED IN THE SPECIFIC PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS IN THE GRADUATE DEGREE PROGRAM SECTION IN THE CATALOG. THE REQUIREMENTS DESCRIBED HERE APPLY ONLY TO PROGRAMS THAT HAVE NOT ESTABLISHED DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS.

 

*        At least four faculty members shall serve on the graduate advisory committee for each Ph.D. student. At least two committee members shall be ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ faculty. One of the ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ committee members must be on a tenure-track appointment in a Ph.D.-granting department. The committee shall be chaired or co-chaired by a ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ faculty member.

*          The graduate advisory committee and its chair and/or co-chairs must be approved by the program director and the dean of the Graduate School.

*        ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ rules and regulations on graduate studies shall apply to all ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ graduate students, including those concurrently enrolled at UAA and UAS.

*        The graduate advisory committee must meet at least once a year to update the Graduate Study Plan and to review the student�s progress toward the degree. The annual progress report must be signed by all committee members and submitted to the dean of the ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ Graduate School.

*        A comprehensive exam committee composed of the student�s advisory committee will administer the Ph.D. comprehensive exam for each student.

*        The Ph.D. thesis defense is to be conducted on the ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ campus.

 

EFFECTIVE:          Fall 2005

 

RATIONALE:         One program, Engineering, has already established its own requirements; if approved, the proposed Psychology Ph.D. will also have different requirements. Therefore, clarification is needed to assure that the catalog does not include contradictory information, and that the general catalog requirements for collaborative Ph.D. graduate studies apply unless different requirements have been approved by the Faculty Senate.

 

 

------------------------------

ATTACHMENT 125/7

ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ Faculty Senate #125

November 1, 2004

SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE

 

 

MOTION

======

 

The ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ Faculty Senate moves to recommend that the proposed changes to Regents' Policy and the draft University Regulation 03.01.01 -- Faculty, Staff and Student Governance as submitted by the Faculty Alliance be accepted with minor changes as indicated in section L.1.

 

         EFFECTIVE:          Immediately

 

         RATIONALE:         This motion clarifies Regents' policy and establishes University regulation dealing with Faculty, Staff and Student Governance.

 

 

                                             *

 

CAPS - Addition

[[  ]]  - Deletion

 

 

DRAFT UNIVERSITY REGULATION 03.01.01

FACULTY, STAFF AND STUDENT GOVERNANCE

 

 

L.      TRANSMITTAL OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTIONS

 

1.      Transmittal of System Governance Recommendations and Actions to the Administration or Board of Regents

 

Actions of the system governance groups affecting the university system or system community shall be transmitted in writing to the President of the University and the responsible executive within 40 days of the action taken.  Transmittal shall NORMALLY include evidence of dialogue with the responsible executive and a faithful characterization of the views [[that]] OF THE RESPONSIBLE executive and of THE SYSTEM governance GROUP.

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

REVISION DRAFTED SEPTEMBER 24, 2004/pmi

 

Regents' Policy

PART III - Faculty, Staff and Student Governance
CHAPTER I

Faculty, Staff and Student Governance

 

P03.01.01

The opportunity for faculty, staff and students to participate in the governance of the University is important to its effective operation. The Board of Regents intends that faculty, staff and student participation in University governance be an integral part of the University community's culture.

After consultation with University faculty, staff and students, the President shall promulgate University Regulations establishing the systemwide governance structure and its constituent organizations. The structure shall include a systemwide organization for faculty, staff and students; an alliance of faculty senates; an alliance of classified and APT staff; an intercampus student network; and appropriate campus constituent organizations.

Each systemwide organization shall development a constitution establishing its name, role and responsibilities which, upon approval by the President, shall be entered into University Regulations. CONSTITUTIONS FOR EACH SYSTEMWIDE ORGANIZATION ARE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE PRESIDENT.   Constitutions for campus employee organizations are subject to the approval of the cognizant chancellor. Student government constitutions are subject to Regents' Policy 09.01.01.  THE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR EACH SYSTEMWIDE ORGANIZATION SHALL BE ENTERED INTO UNIVERSITY REGULATIONS.

Governance organizations shall carry out their functions subject to the authority of the Board of Regents and the President and chancellors of the University. The organizations' purposes are to:

• provide an effective opportunity for University faculty, staff and students to play a meaningful role in matters affecting their welfare;
• represent the viewpoints of University faculty, staff and students on Regents' Policy, University Regulations, and other matters affecting the interests of the University;
• address through legislative action other matters as described in their approved constitutions;
• advise the President and chancellors of the University in a timely fashion and in a manner set forth in individual organizational constitutions; and
• communicate to faculty, staff and students information which is of interest and concern to the University.

The President and the chancellors shall respond to actions taken by governance groups in a timely fashion as described in the approved constitutions.

Participants in governance shall carry out their governance responsibilities in good faith and to the best of their abilities without fear of reprisal. Spokespersons for governance groups may present their views directly to the Board of Regents in accordance with Board procedures.

REVISION DRAFTED SEPTEMBER 24, 2004/pmi

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

DRAFT UNIVERSITY REGULATION 03.01.010

FACULTY, STAFF AND STUDENT GOVERNANCE

Originated  March 30, 2000, revised March 31, April 2, April 8, April 22,  April 27, 2004, May 4 and May 10, 2004, August 26, 2004, August 31, 2004

 

 

A.      INTENT

 

It is the intent of the Board of Regents 1) that the faculty, staff and students shall share in the governance of the university, 2) that shared governance is an integral part of the business of the university and 3) that participants in shared governance are empowered by the Board of Regents   to carry out their governance responsibilities to the best of their abilities without fear of reprisal.

 

B.      GOVERNANCE GROUPS

 

         1.      Systemwide

 

The University hereby establishes a mechanism for faculty, staff and students to participate in system governance through the following organizations:

 

         Faculty Alliance

         Staff Alliance

         Coalition of Student Leaders

         System Governance Council

 

Additionally, alumni associations are established at the three academic units and participate ex-officio on the System Governance Council.

 

2.      MAU-Specific

 

The University hereby recognizes that institution-specific governance groups are an integral part of and are established at the University of ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ Anchorage (UAA), the University of ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ Fairbanks (ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ), the University of ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ Southeast (UAS), and the University of ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ Statewide (SW).

 

C.      AUTHORITY

 

1.      Systemwide

 

The Faculty Alliance, Staff Alliance, Coalition of Student Leaders and System Governance Council receive their authority and shall carry out their functions subject to the authority of the Board of Regents and the President of the University. 

 

2.      MAU-Specific

 

Faculty and staff governance groups at UAA, ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ, UAS and SW receive their authority from their cognizant chancellor, with the Vice President for University Relations serving as the cognizant chancellor for SW. 

 

Student governments receive their authority from Regents� Policy Part IX, Chapter 7, and corresponding University Regulations.

 

Alumni associations receive their authority from Regents� Policy 02.08.01.

 

D.      PURPOSE

 

The purposes of the system governance groups within the University of ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ are set forth and maintained in Board of Regents Policy 03.01.01.

 

 

E.      ORGANIZATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES

 

Governance groups shall carry out their functions subject to their respective charters, constitutions, and bylaws.

 

         Responsibilities of the local governance groups are reflected in their respective charters, constitutions and bylaws. Responsibilities of the system governance groups are listed below.

 

1.      Faculty Alliance

 

         It is the responsibility of the Faculty Alliance to represent the faculty in areas that may include but are not limited to: coordination on matters relating to academic affairs such as academic program review; the addition, deletion or merging of academic programs; curriculum; subject matter and methods of instruction; degree requirements; grading policy; course coordination and transfer; student probation and suspension; standards of admission and scholastic standards; and other matters affecting the faculty, and/or the general welfare of the university and its educational purposes and effectiveness.

 

2.      Staff Alliance

 

         It is the responsibility of the Staff Alliance to represent the Classified and APT (Administrative Professional and Technical) employees who are [rjo1] not represented by a collective bargaining agent in areas that may include but are not limited to: staff affairs, excluding those relating exclusively to faculty; personnel policies and regulations; compensation and benefits; and other issues affecting the work environment and/or the general welfare of the university staff.

 

3.      Coalition of Student Leaders

 

         It is the responsibility of the Coalition of Student Leaders to represent the students in areas that may include, but are not limited to: tuition and fees: financial aid and scholarships; residence life; minority and rural services; clubs and social activities; student media in all forms; health and safety; grievances; tools and resources; student employee relations, and other issues affecting the educational environment and availability of resources for student use.

 

4.      System Governance Council

 

         It is the responsibility of the System Governance Council to coordinate matters of mutual interest or concern to the Faculty Alliance, the Staff Alliance, the Coalition of Student Leaders, and the alumni associations.

 

F.      MEMBERSHIP RESPONSIBILITIES

 

For faculty and staff, it is understood that while governance participants� primary responsibilities are performance of the duties for which they are employed, supervisors and employees will coordinate to ensure that departmental and governance needs are met.

 

Serving on university governance groups is considered to be within the regular work duties of university employees and is supported by the university.  

 

Students serve on governance groups in accordance with Regents Policy and University Regulation 09.07.05.

 

Members who serve as officers or participate in special projects, research activities, events or committees directed by their governance organizations require sufficient time to meet those obligations in a reasonable fashion.

 

Guidelines for participation in governance that are not included in governance group charters, constitutions or bylaws shall be promulgated by the system governance executive officer and made available for use by all members of the university community.

 

G.      MEMBERSHIP

 

Numbers of members and terms of office are prescribed in the constitutions, or equivalent documents of the respective system governance groups.  MAU-specific governance groups determine the method of selection of their own members and their representatives to the system governance groups.

 

H.      MEETINGS

 

         Meeting schedules are determined by the governance groups.  Meetings may be held on-site or by audio or videoconference or some combination of these methods. Meeting notices will be published and available through commonly used means.

 

I.       QUORUM

 

         Quorum is defined by each governance group in their constitutions, or equivalent documents.

 

J.       PARLIAMENTARY AUTHORITY

 

         The parliamentary authority for system governance groups shall be the latest version of Robert�s Rules of Order on file and available from the system governance office.

 

K.      CHARTERS, CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS

 

1.      System Governance Groups

 

Constitutions and amendments for system governance groups, once passed by the groups, shall be:

 

*        transmitted to the President of the University for information,

*        placed in system governance group handbooks, and

*        retained in System Governance and Board of Regents offices.

 

2.      MAU-Specific Governance Groups

 

a.      Faculty and Staff Governance

 

MAU-specific faculty and staff governance group constitutions and bylaws and amendments, once passed by the groups, shall be transmitted to the cognizant chancellor, or in the case of the statewide administration assembly, to the Vice President for University Relations, for approval. 

 

b.      Student Governance

 

Student government group constitutions, once approved by the individual student government groups shall be transmitted to the President of the University for approval in accordance with University Regulation 09.07.05.

 

L.      TRANSMITTAL OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTIONS

 

1.      Transmittal of System Governance Recommendations and Actions to     the Administration or Board of Regents

 

Actions of the system governance groups affecting the university system or system community shall be transmitted in writing to the President of the University and the responsible executive within 40 days of the action taken.  Transmittal shall NORMALLY include evidence of dialogue with the responsible executive and a faithful characterization of the views [[that]] OF THE RESPONSIBLE executive and of  THE SYSTEM governance GROUP.

 

2.      Transmittal of Items from Administration and the Board of Regents to System Governance

 

Items initiated by the President of the University, the President�s designee, or the Board of Regents affecting matters within the scope of staff, faculty and/or student governance normally shall be submitted to the appropriate system governance group through the system governance office in a timely fashion to allow sufficient time for adequate review and response prior to implementation.

 

However, Regents� Policies and University Regulations requiring immediate implementation may be implemented prior to review by governance.  Such policies and regulations will also be forwarded to governance in an expedient manner and may be modified after governance review.

 

M.      ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND REVIEW OF GOVERNANCE RECOMMENDATIONS

 

         A.  Recommendations Transmitted to the President

 

The President's office shall acknowledge governance recommendations within ten (10) business days following receipt using a means equivalent to that used for transmittal.

 

The President of the University shall notify the spokesperson of  the sponsoring governance group and the system governance executive officer of the approval, disapproval, or modification of a governance action within forty-five (45) days of receiving the recommendation.

 

In cases where this arrangement cannot be satisfied, the responsible executive will notify the sponsoring governance group as to the review process and anticipated date the review is likely to be concluded. and administrative recommendations forwarded to the president.

 

         B.  Recommendations Transmitted to the Board of Regents

 

The Board of Regents' office shall acknowledge governance recommendations within ten (10) business days following receipt using a means equivalent to that used for transmittal.

 

       The Executive Officer of the Board of Regents shall notify the spokesperson of the sponsoring governance group and the system governance executive officer of the approval, disapproval, or modification of a governance action within ninety (90) days of receiving the recommendation.

 

N.      PRESIDENTIAL ACTION ON RECOMMENDATIONS

 

       If the President determines that Board of Regents action is warranted as a result of a governance recommendation, including, but not limited to changes to Regents' Policy, the governance item is placed on the Regents� agenda for discussion or action as appropriate and the sponsoring governance leader(s) are invited to participate in the discussion of the issue.

 

         Spokespersons for governance groups may also present their views directly to the Board of Regents in accordance with Board procedures.

 

 

Not part of the regulation draft but listed here for the ad hoc committee�s convenience.

                                                                                                  

 

TIMELINES FOR REVIEW OF DRAFT REGULATION 03.01.01

 

By the end of the day on May 11, 2004

 

The ad hoc committee will finalize the draft and distribute it to the governance groups for input.

 

On September 14-15, 2004

 

         Governance leaders and the Board of Regents will discuss the roll of governance during a joint meeting of the BOR Human Resources Committee and the Academic and Student Affairs Committee.

 

By October 29, 2004

 

         Local governance groups will review the draft regulation and provide input to the System Governance Council.

 

November 8, 2004

 

         Governance leaders will submit requests to the regents affairs office to participate in the December 8-9, 2004 Board of Regents meeting.

 

On November 11, 2004

 

         The System Governance Council will meet, will act on the final draft and forward it to the UA president and the regents affairs officer for inclusion on the Board of Regents December 8-9, 2004 agenda.

 

 

------------------------------
ATTACHMENT 125/8

ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ Faculty Senate #125

November 1, 2004

SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS

 

 

Curricular Affairs Committee       

MINUTES

Monday, September 27th,  2:15-3 p.m,  NSF Room 306

 

Present: Jeannette Smith, Rainer Newberry, Gayle Gregory, Wanda Martin, Joseph Thompson, Tim Stickel, Yuri Shur, and Mike Earnest; guests Paul Layer (Faculty Appeals & Oversight) and Gary Holton (Unit Criteria)

 

1. Motion concerning definitions of valid academic degrees (below, not including attachments).    Numerous corrections to the draft motion were made.  The revised motion, below, was unanimously approved by the committee.

 

2.  Volunteer to chair the �Curriculum Review� subcommittee.  Not a crisis yet; rainer announced that arm-twisting would take place next meeting.

 

3.  Undergraduate degree requirements.  Current BOR requirements are at least 30 ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ credits, of which at least 24 must be upper division (300 or 400 level classes).  This translates into 1 year's worth of courses at/through ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ (30 credits of 120 minimum) but almost 2/3 of the upper division courses (39 min required) be taken at ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ.  

 

Proposal to request the BOR change requirement to: �21 UA   upper division credits with at least 15 taken at ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ� discussed.    Committee suggested that the request to the BOR explicitly state that the 39 UD credit requirement would not be changed.   Committee pointed out that Curric Affairs committee equivalents at UAA and UAS ought to be contacted prior to bringing up the issue at the Faculty Senate level.   Rainer agreed to contact the appropriate people and get some discussion going, then report back at the next meeting.

 

4. Meeting enthusiastically adjourned at 3:05.

 

 

------------------------------
ATTACHMENT 125/9

ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ Faculty Senate #125

November 1, 2004

SUBMITTED BY FACULTY AFFAIRS

 

 

FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE REPORT

Thursday, 7 October 04

Duckering 531 Conference Room, 10am-11.30am

 

Committee Members Present:

Sine Anahita, CLA, Karen Erickson, CLA, Joan Leguard, CLA, Shirish Patil, CEM, Craig Wisen, SOM, Denis Wiesenberg, SFOS (Ex-Officio), Mingchu Zhang, SNRAS

 

Committee Members Absent

Scott Bailey, CNSM, Jon Genetti, CNSM, Michele He�bert, CES, Anupma Prakash, CNSM

 

Agenda Items:

 

1. Policy on Distinguished Faculty- Prof. Swazo presented the current ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ policy for Distinguished Faculty and the rationale for proposed change. FA members discussed the rationale for change. Joan Leguard will draft amendment to existing policy after discussions with Dean Braddock, and Prof. Ed Murphy. The amendment will be forwarded to the Administrative Committee for its November 04 meeting.
2. Emeritus Faculty Policy- Current ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ policy and Regents Regulation were reviewed. Karen Erickson and Shirish Patil will draft an amendment to current ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ policy for more rigorous review of nominations as well as provide further clarifications on eligibility for nominations and time limit for to be nominated after retirement.
3. Faculty Rights & Responsibilities in Classroom (National Student Movement)- Faculty academic freedom is being challenged on many campuses by the national student movement. A ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ club called �Students For Academic Freedom� made a presentation to the Faculty Senate in April 04. Since then, a few faculty members have expressed concerns regarding students causing disruptive behavior in the classroom, insisting on the instructors to accept their views on subjects not related to instruction. FA members Sine Anahita and Michele He�bert will look into drafting a ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ policy on, �Faculty Rights & Responsibilities in Classroom�.
4. Constitution/Bylaw Change re: Elections & Membership: FA members are reviewing current Faculty Senate Constitution/Bylaws to see if it warrants any change in the existing policy.

 

Submitted by:

Shirish Patil

 

------------------------------

ATTACHMENT 125/10

ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ Faculty Senate #125

November 1, 2004

SUBMITTED BY COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN

 

 

Committee on the Status of Women
October 6, 2004

Wood Center Conference Room B

 

Present:  Uma Bhatt, Carol Gold, Cindy Hardy, David Koester, Denise Thorsen, Jane Weber, Sine Anahita, Earlina Bowden

 

Sine presented and recommended the University of Wisconsin "Study of Faculty Worklife" as a possible model from which to work in designing our own survey.   Uma had distributed the document by e-mail and there was general agreement that it would be a good place to start.

 

- Uma will check on exactly how we should 'acknowledge'  the U of Wisconsin survey developers.

 

Sine presented a proposed budget for the survey, totaling $6,082.31.  This total did not include the cost of mailing labels or for copying and binding the final report.  It was suggested that both of these be added before submitting to the provost for approval.  Earlina agreed to produce the mailing labels by which the survey would be sent out. 

 

- Jane and Carol will go to the Provost with the budget soon

 

- Committee would like to see the original U of ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ Survey. Earlina will share hard copies of it along with the analyzed results at our next meeting.

 

- Denise showed an analysis plot of the time from when people are hired to when they get tenure and to when they become full professor. She will do some more analysis on the data.

 

The group agreed that suggestions and additional questions, based on or in response to the Wisconsin survey should be sent to Sine by October 14. 

 

The next meeting is scheduled for October 20th.

 

 

minutes recorded by David Koester and Uma Bhatt

 

 

--------------------------------------------

 

 

20 October 2004 2:15-3:15, Meeting minutes

 

Present: Carol Gold, Jane Weber, David Koester, Denise Thorsen, Uma

Bhatt, Cindy Hardy

 

1) HR Survey

   We learned that there will be a survey sent out by HR in the near future. Carol and Jane received a copy of this survey but not everyone has read it. It was suggested, by HR and others,  that we piggy-back with this survey. This is a national survey, but we would be able to ask 20 additional questions designed for ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ. We want to consider this carefully. Carol gave Jim Johnson of HR a copy of the WI survey to let them know what we were planning on doing.

 

 

2) Our Planned Survey:

  The general feeling of the committee was that the HR survey was interested in different questions than we are so we are likely to proceed as planned, by taking the WI survey and modifying it.  The Provost said $5k was available for us to do our survey.

 

3) Database on ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ employees

   Denise met with Earlina Bowden after our previous meeting (6 Oct 2004) and she has an extensive database that includes information about people who have left. So Denise will ask for certain fields and do more analysis to understand the low numbers of female full professors. Erlina will give Denise the data (removing the names) so she can look into this further.

 

Information available in this database.

Date of hire, gender, promotion date, termination date, primary cause for leaving. Denise will focus on people who came in as tenure track for the first analysis. It would be nice to know salary history, which may or may not be available. Denise will do her analysis over the last 15-20 years.

 

She will examine the tenure track people as one group to keep the

question clean and simple and hope to answer some of the following questions.

     - Why are there significantly fewer female full professors than male?

     - Why are women paid less than men?

 

A second group of people to examine are the large population that

teach at the university who do not have tenure track positions.

- What is the gender breakdown?

- How long have they stayed?

  - Why did they leave?

  - For the term people start with half time and higher folks.

 

As the discussion continued, it became clear we needed a clear description of the different categories of employees in addition to the two groups mentioned above such as Research Faculty and  Research Associates. Many people in the last two categories teach and mentor students.

 

David suggested that actuarial statistics can be added to our analysis. He has done this in the past so Denise will extract the data on the faculty and then pass the raw data on to him for analysis.

 

4) How should we change the WI survey?  This is the homework for the next meeting. Each of us should look through the survey and keeping the following three questions in mind.

a) Missing questions?

         - Childcare hours (came up in our discussion today)

b) Other job categories?

         - term employees

         - research faculty

         - research associates

c) Any questions we want removed?

 

 

5) Carol reported that Ann Marie Poole has the date of degree information for us on the faculty.

 

Next meetings: Wednesday Nov 17th, 2004 2:15-3:15, Chancellor's Conf. Rm. & Wednesday, Dec 1st, 2004  2:15-3:15, Chancellor's Conf. Rm.

 

Submitted by Uma S. Bhatt

 

 

------------------------------
ATTACHMENT 125/11

ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ Faculty Senate #125

November 1, 2004

SUBMITTED BY Developmental Studies

 

 

Developmental Studies Committee Meeting

Sept. 30, 2004

 

 

Attendance:

Cindy Hardy, John Bruder, Marjorie Illingworth, Ron Illingworth, Greg Owens, Wanda Martin, Patty Baldwin, Joe Mason, Bernice Joseph.

 

Roles of the Faculty Senate Developmental Studies Committee and the Department of Developmental Education   

The purview of committee is curricular review of Developmental English, Math, Science, and Studies courses.  The committee can act as a conduit for needs, questions, concerns from other parts of the University, e.g. Rural Student Services, Student Support Services, the Advising Center, Enrollment Management, etc. to be brought back to the department.  The committee can also act as a means for Developmental Studies issues to be brought to the Faculty Senate and provide oversight so that Developmental issues don�t get lost or discounted.

 

Departmental responsibilities include planning for mandatory placement, Developmental course data collection, and curriculum development.  These areas no longer require the direct oversight of the Committee.  To this end the Department has developed the following committees: Curriculum Committee, Mandatory Placement Committee, Research and Evaluation Committee, Professional Development Committee.  The department is also developing a mission statement.

 

Recommendations for Committee action this semester:

The Developmental Studies External Review report is a good map for us to follow in making curriculum review decisions.  The CRA Developmental Studies Division website, webmaster Ron Illingworth, would be a good place to make this report available. .  We will also distribute an e-copy of the report to everyone on the committee to review.   The committee chairs will also create a Blackboard site for committee interaction (for Discussion Board and posting documents for all to access).

 

There will be course approvals coming up.  Course approvals go to the Faculty Senate in November.  The committee will reconvene as these course approvals come in for review.

 

 

------------------------------
ATTACHMENT 125/12

ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ Faculty Senate #125

November 1, 2004

SUBMITTED BY FACULTY APPEALS & OVERSIGHT

 

 

Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee meeting

September 30 2004,  1:00 - 2:00

 

Present:  Cysewski, Gorman, Johnson, Layer, Moessner, Morotti, Norcross, Pippenger, Reyes

 

We met with Executive Dean Joseph to discuss last year's review process.  Dean Joseph informed us that she discussed the reviews with Tony Nakazawa and Clara Johnson during her annual meetings with them.  Both Dean Joseph and Provost Reichardt (with whom we met at the last meeting) thanked the committee for its work and felt that the process provides valuable faculty input.

 

By unanimous vote, the FAOC approved a motion to co-sponsor the motion on valid academic degrees to be put forward by Curricular Affairs.

 

Revison of ad-hoc committee membership for group B review for 2004-2005:

Akasofu:  Gorman (chair), Ganguli, Moessner, Reyes

Barnes:    Morotti (chair), Johnson, Pippenger, Raad

Smoker:   Layer (chair), Cysewski, Duffy, Norcross

The chairs will begin to look at developing faculty and staff surveys and will start to compile lists of faculty and staff in each unit.  We are awaiting the files from these administrators before starting the review process.

 

The next meeting of the FAOC is tentatively scheduled for Thursday October 28,  1:00 - 2:00 PM

 

 

------------------------------
ATTACHMENT 125/13

ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ Faculty Senate #125

November 1, 2004

SUBMITTED BY GRADUATE ACADEMIC & ADVISORY

 

 

GAAC Meeting Report

Meeting # 2 2004-2005

Sept 21, 2004, 2:30-4 pm

 

Present:

Members: Mary Ehrlander, Patty Gray, Catherine Koverola, Christa Mulder, Jennifer Reynolds, Richard Wies, Joan Parker-Webster.

Ex-officio: Susan Henrichs, Joan Braddock, Laura Bender, Gayle Gregory.

 

1.            We discussed the motions (draft supplied by Patty) clarifying the requirements for registration for graduate students (essentially stating that 400-level courses can be used), and what constitutes a �pass� in a deficiency course (a minimum of a �B�).  They were agreed upon with very minor changes.

 

2.            New issue:  the cooperative PhD policy with UAA, as stated in the catalogue, lists minimum requirements that not all current programs (e.g. Engineering) or planned programs (Psychology) adhere to.  In the case of Psychology, the structure as outlined simply doesn�t fit the structure the two departments (at UAA and ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ) have worked out. We discussed potential changes to the policy as written.  One concern raised was that if we simply said �these are guidelines, other programs may have other requirements� that quality control would be weakened.  One way around this is to require that any requirements that differ from those in the catalogue would have to be approved by the Faculty Senate.  This requirement has already been met by the Engineering, and will have to be met by the Psychology PhD program since it is a new program.  Patty agreed to write a draft of the motion to address this.

 

3.            The issue was raised that there continues to be confusion over when students should sign up for XX698, and when they should sign up for XX699.  The 698 course number should not be used for thesis research, only for projects or other research outside of the thesis. Joan Braddock and Susan Henrichs confirmed that they sign a number of petitions each year to change 698 credits to 699 credits.  It was suggested that the 699 designator be renamed �Non-thesis research or project� to make the distinction clearer.  Christa agreed to draft a motion.

 

4.            Since there were no business items on the agenda (other than approving the motions) and course proposals were not yet due, we agreed to postpone the next meeting until the end of October.  In the meantime, trial course proposals will be distributed and final versions of the motions circulated and voted on over email so they can be included on the agenda of the next Faculty Senate meeting.

 

------------------------------

ATTACHMENT 125/14

ÓÐÁϺÐ×ÓÊÓƵ Faculty Senate #125

November 1, 2004

SUBMITTED BY UNIT CRITERIA

 

 

Minutes

Unit Criteria Committee

October 15, 2004, Brooks 108, 3:15-4:45 pm

 

Members present: Debasmita Misra (CME); Glenn Chappell (CMS); Gary Holton (CLA); Brenda Konar (SFOS); Ping Lan (SOM)

 

Guests [by audio conference]: Terry Johnson (MAP); Paula Cullenberg (MAP); Liz Brown (MAP)

 

All members are new to the committee this year (though Holton chaired the committee in AY2002-03). Thus, the committee spent approximately 15 minutes discussing the nature of UC and the charge of the committee. 

 

Marine Advisory Program (MAP) criteria. These UC were submitted to the committee last year and apparently returned to MAP for further revision. Paula Cullenberg reviewed the history of the process for the committee.  Since MAP  forms a subunit of SFOS it was requested in Spring 2004 that the entire SFOS have a chance to comment on the revised UC. Revisions were approved by the former dean of SFOS in April or May of 2004 and circulated to SFOS faculty for comment. No comments were received. In July 2004 the UC were again  reviewed by the new SFOS Dean, Dennis Weisenberg, who recommended that the revised UC be forwarded to the Senate.

 

The MAP UC are formatted according to the format proposed by the UC committee in AY2002-03 and are very much inspired by the recently-approved CES criteria. The committee found no substantive problems with the UC proposal. However, given that most of the committee is new to the UC process, it was decided to postpone a motion to approve the MAP UC until the committee has a chance to become familiar with existing UC.

 

Gary Holton was selected as committee chair, and Glenn Chappell agreed to serve as co-chair.

 

The next meetings of the UC committee will be Nov 12 and Dec 3 at the same time and place.

 

The committee discussed the �Acceptable Degree Motion� proposed by CA. While the UC committee agrees in principle with this motion, several concerns were raised. (i) Chappell felt the restrictions in #6 are too strong and may constitute a violation of academic freedom. (ii) #5 should apply to admissions as well; (iii) Misra sees a need for a more complete international list of unacceptable degrees; the current one seems to focus on the USA; (iv) in #4 Dean should probably be replaced with �supervisor�, since not everyone is supervised by a dean.

 

The committee briefly discussed the issues of the composition of unit peer committees and the composition of university-wide review committees. These issues will be addressed with a motion at the next meeting.