The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting # 96 on
September 25, 2000:
MOTION PASSED
============
The UAF Faculty Senate moves to withdraw the motion to amend the
Constitution presented at the May 5, 2000 meeting concerning research
faculty membership on the Senate.
EFFECTIVE: Immediately
RATIONALE: The Faculty Affairs Committee discussion raised
several issues with this motion as presented and they will
study the issue further before bringing it back to the
Senate.
***FIRST READING***
MOTION
======
The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend Article III, Section 2 of the
UAF Faculty Senate Constitution as follows:
[[ ]] = Deletions
CAPS = Additions
ARTICLE III - Membership
Sect. 2 Voting members of the Senate must EITHER hold academic
rank [[and must be]] WITH full-time CONTINUING
APPOINTMENT AT [[permanent employees of]] the
University of AVÀÇÂÛ̳ FAIRBANKS OR HOLD SPECIAL
ACADEMIC RANK WITH TITLE PRECEDED BY �RESEARCH�
AND HAVE A THREE-YEAR CONTINUING APPOINTMENT IN
THE YEAR OF ELIGIBILITY AND ELECTION.
EFFECTIVE: Upon Chancellor approval
RATIONALE: The number of research faculty on campus has
increased in recent years. Members of this faculty group
seek participation in faculty governance as well as
representation on the Faculty Senate. This change
accommodates this group of faculty.
The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting # 96 on
September 25, 2000:
MOTION PASSED
============
The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve the following Appeals Policy
for Academic Decisions.
EFFECTIVE: Immediately
Upon Chancellor Approval
RATIONALE: This motion will bring UAF into compliance with
the new UA Regulation 09.03.02 and extend
UAF's appeals policy beyond grade appeals.
APPEALS POLICY FOR ACADEMIC DECISIONS
Other Than Assignment of Grades
I. Introduction
The University of AVÀÇÂÛ̳ is committed to the ideal of academic freedom
and so recognizes that academic decisions (i.e., non-admission to or
dismissal from any UAF program) are a faculty responsibility. Therefore,
the University administration shall not influence or affect the review of
academic decisions.
The following procedures are designed to provide a means for students
to seek review of academic decisions alleged to be arbitrary and
capricious. Before taking formal action, a student must attempt to
resolve the issue informally. 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. As used in the schedule for review of academic decisions, a class
day is any day of scheduled instruction, excluding Saturday and
Sunday, included on the academic calendar in effect at the time of
a review. Final examination periods are counted as class days.
B. "Department Chair" 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, or the
campus director if the faculty member is in the College of Rural
AVÀÇÂÛ̳).
C. The "dean/director" is the administrative head of the college or
school offering the course or program from which the academic
decision or action arises. For students at extended campuses
the director of the campus may substitute for the dean/director
of the unit offering the course or program.
D. The next regular semester is the fall or spring semester following
that in which the disputed academic decision was made. For
example, it would be the fall semester for a final grade issued
for a course completed during the previous spring semester or
summer session. The spring semester is the next regular
semester for an academic decision made during the previous
fall semester.
III. Procedures
A. A student wishing to appeal an academic decision other than a
grade assignment must first request an informal review of the
decision.
1. Notification must be received by the Provost within
15 days from the first day of instruction of the semester
in which the decision takes effect.
2. 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 Provost, after review of supporting documentation
provided by the student, may adjust the deadlines
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.
3. The Provost will request the appropriate department chair
or dean to conduct an informal review of the decision and
a determination of whether the original decision should be
overturned or changed in any way. This review shall take
no more than ten (10) days.
4. The Provost will consult with the student on the
department chair/dean's recommendation. If the student
does not find that recommendation acceptable, he/she
may request the Provost to conduct a formal review.
B. The formal review will be conducted as follows.
1. This review is initiated by the student through a signed,
written request to the Provost.
a. The student's request for review may be submitted
using university forms specifically designed for this
purpose and available from the Office of the Provost.
b. By submitting a request for a review, the student
acknowledges that no additional mechanisms exist
within the university for the review of the decision,
and that the university's administration can not
influence or affect the outcome of the review.
c. The request for a formal review must be received
no later than 10 days after the student has learned
the outcome of the informal review (IIIA4).
d. The request must detail the basis for the allegation
that the decision was made on a basis other than
sound professional judgment based upon standard
academic policies, procedures and practices.
2. The Provost will appoint a 5 member review committee
composed of the following:
a. One tenure-track faculty member from the academic
unit in which the decision was made.
b. Two tenure-track faculty members from within the
college or school but outside of the unit in which
the decision was made. If available, one of these
two members will be selected from the members
of the UAF Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee.
c. One tenure track faculty member from outside the
college or school in which the decision was made.
If available, this member is to be selected from the
members of the UAF Faculty Appeals and Oversight
Committee.
d. The fifth member to be appointed by the Provost
will be a non-voting student representative.
e. The campus judicial officer or his/her designee shall
serve as a nonvoting facilitator for appeals hearings.
This individual shall serve in an advisory role to help
preserve consistent hearing protocol and records.
f. The department chair of the program in which the
decision was made will act as the program's monitor
of all proceedings.
3. The committee must schedule a mutually agreeable date,
time and location for the appeal hearing within 10 working
days of receipt of the student's formal request.
a. During this and 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. The mandatory first item of business at this meeting
is for the committee to 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.
2) The request was not made within the policy
deadlines.
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.
4. 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 program 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 a representative of the
program 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.
5. The final decision of the committee will be made in private
by a majority vote.
a. Actions which the committee can take if it accepts
the student's allegation may include, but are not
limited to, the following:
1) direct the program to reconsider the decision,
2) provide a final alternative decision.
b. The academic decision review committee proceedings
will result in the preparation of written findings and
conclusions.
c. A formal, written report of the decision must be
forwarded to the student, program/department chair,
dean and Provost within five days of the meeting.
The Provost shall then be responsible for
communicating the decision to other relevant
offices (e.g., Admissions, Registrar).
d. The decision of the committee is final.
C. The entire process must be completed by the end of the
semester in which the decision first took effect.
The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting # 96 on
September 25, 2000:
MOTION
=======
The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the UAF Faculty Appointment
and Evaluation Policies and Regulations for the Evaluation of Faculty:
Initial Appointment, Annual Review, Reappointment, Promotion, Tenure,
and Sabbatical Leave as attached.
EFFECTIVE: Immediately
Upon Chancellor's Approval
RATIONALE: Unit Criteria as a component of
evaluation, tenure, and promotion was apparently
removed from the last "Blue Book" due to an erroneous
belief that the faculty union contracts rendered them
void or redundant in the "Blue Book". This is emphatically
not the case, and so we have reinserted the relevant
paragraphs on Unit Criteria from the previous "Blue
Book".
[[ ]] = Deletion
CAPS = Addition
III. PERIODIC EVALUATION OF FACULTY
B. UNIT STANDARDS AND INDICES. UNIT STANDARDS AND INDICES
ARE THE RECOGNIZED VALUES USED BY A FACULTY WITHIN A
SPECIFIC DISCIPLINE TO ELUCIDATE, BUT NOT REPLACE, THE
GENERAL FACULTY CRITERIA ESTABLISHED IN A., ABOVE, FOR
EVALUATION OF FACULTY PERFORMANCE ON AN ONGOING BASIS
AND FOR PROMOTION, TENURE AND SABBATICAL REVIEW.
UNIT STANDARDS AND INDICES MAY BE, BUT ARE NOT REQUIRED
TO BE, DEVELOPED BY THOSE UNITS WISHING TO DO SO. UNITS
THAT CHOOSE NOT TO DEVELOP DISCIPLINE-SPECIFIC UNIT
STANDARDS AND INDICES MUST FILE A STATEMENT SO STATING
WITH THE CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE WHICH SHALL SERVE AS THE
OFFICIAL REPOSITORY FOR APPROVED UNIT STANDARDS AND
INDICES.
UNIT STANDARDS AND INDICES, IF DESIRED, WILL BE DEVELOPED
BY THE FACULTY IN A DISCIPLINE. AFTER APPROVAL BY A
MAJORITY OF THE DISCIPLINE FACULTY, THE UNIT STANDARDS
AND INDICES WILL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE
COGNIZANT DEAN WHO WILL FORWARD THE UNIT STANDARDS
AND INDICES TO THE PROVOST. THE PROVOST WILL REVIEW
FOR CONSISTENCY WITH POLICY AND WILL FORWARD THESE
STANDARDS AND INDICES TO THE SENATE FOR ITS AND THE
CHANCELLOR'S APPROVAL.
UNIT STANDARDS AND INDICES WILL BE REVIEWED PERIODICALLY
BY THE FACULTY OF THE UNIT. REVISION OF UNIT STANDARDS
AND INDICES MUST FOLLOW THE ESTABLISHED REVIEW PROCESS.
IF THE UNIT STANDARDS AND INDICES ARE NOT REVISED, A
STATEMENT OF REAFFIRMATION OF THE CURRENT UNIT
STANDARDS AND INDICES MUST BE FILED WITH THE
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE, FOLLOWING THE REVIEW.
UNIT STANDARDS AND INDICES, WHEN DEVELOPED BY THE
FACULTY AND APPROVED BY THE SENATE AND THE
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE, MUST BE USED IN THE REVIEW
PROCESSES BY ALL LEVELS OF REVIEW. THEIR USE IS NOT
OPTIONAL.
IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CANDIDATE FOR
TENURE OR PROMOTION TO INCLUDE THESE APPROVED
STANDARDS AND INDICES IN THE APPLICATION FILE.
IV. EVALUATION PROCESS FOR RETENTION, PROMOTION, TENURE,
AND POST TENURE REVIEW
A. Linkage of Promotion/Tenure. An award of tenure is concurrent
with promotion and vice versa. Any faculty member applying for
promotion to the associate level must also apply for tenure; and
a faculty member at the rank of assistant professor may not
apply for tenure without concurrently seeking advancement to
the rank of associate professor.
B. Faculty with Academic Rank
1. Criteria and Eligibility. A record of continuing effective
performance shall be expected. Procedures, performance
criteria and requirements are set forth in the applicable
union contracts, UAF Faculty Policies, and in policies of
the Board of Regents and the regulations of the University
system currently in effect and as they may change.
2. Review Process. Promotion and tenure of a faculty
member results from a multi-level process of evaluation
beginning in the academic unit of the candidate.
a. Constitution and Operation of the University-wide
Peer Review committees.
(1) For the purpose of evaluation for tenure
and/or promotion of members of the United
Academics bargaining unit, a list of the
names of seven tenured unit members will be
presented BY THE UAF FACULTY SENATE to
the Provost who will select the committee
or committees. Each unit peer review
committee may nominate one of its members
to serve. The list will be determined from
those nominees by vote of all faculty who
serve on unit peer review committees.
Faculty shall remain on the list for a term
of two years with the terms being staggered.
No specific peer review committee can be
represented by more than one person.
A faculty member may not stand for
promotion during the term of appointment
to the list.
(2) For the purpose of pre or post tenure
evaluation of members of the United
Academics bargaining unit, a list of the
names of seven faculty members will be
presented BY THE UAF FACULTY SENATE
to the Provost who will select the
committee or committees. Each unit peer
review committee may nominate one of its
members to serve. The list will be
determined from those nominees by vote of
all faculty who serve on unit peer review
committees. Faculty shall remain on the list
for a term of two years with the terms
being staggered. No more than one faculty
member on the list can be a member of any
specific peer review committee. A faculty
member may not stand for post tenure
revue during the term of appointment to
the list.
(3) For the purpose of evaluation for tenure
and/or promotion of members of the ACCFT
bargaining unit, a list of the names of
nine faculty members will be presented
BY THE CRA EXECUTIVE DEAN
to the Provost who will select the
committee or committees. The list will be
selected from the tenured faculty in the
ACCFT bargaining unit by vote of those
faculty. Faculty shall remain on the list for
a term of two years with the terms being
staggered. A faculty member may not
stand for promotion during the term
of appointment to the list. The Provost will
appoint two members from the United
Academics University-wide Promotion/
Tenure Committee to serve on the ACCFT
Promotion/Tenure Committee.
UA