╨╧рб▒с>■  ]_■   \                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ье┴? Ё┐сbjbjbгг бД╔}╔}с\      lшшшшшшш (\п Ъииииииииl n n n n n n ,I iиЪ шиииииЪ NшшиииNNNижшишиl N№РМРшшшшиl NN` шш` Д$Фа╕N` ` п п ` N` N├хFOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT: Sheri Layral 312 Signers' Hall 474-7964 FYSENAT A G E N D A 51╖ч┴ў╣┘═° FACULTY SENATE MEETING #107 Monday, March 4, 2002 1:30 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. Board of Regents' Conference Room 109 Butrovich Building 1:30 I Call to Order Ц Norm Swazo 5 Min. A. Roll Call B. Approval of Minutes to Meeting #106 C. Adoption of Agenda 1:35 II Status of Chancellor's Office Actions 5 Min. A. Motions Approved: B. Motions Pending: 1. Motion to approve the M.A. degree program in Applied Linguistics. C. Motions Denied: 2. Motion to delay implementation of the Draft Master Plan. 1:40 III A. Remarks by Chancellor M. Lind 10 Min. B. Remarks by Provost P. Reichardt 5 Min. C. Guest Speaker: Roger Smith, Director, GI 15 Min. "Applied Research at 51╖ч┴ў╣┘═°" Questions 10 Min. 2:20 IV Governance Reports A. AS51╖ч┴ў╣┘═° -D. Miller / GSO - 5 Min. B. Staff Council - L. Ledlow 5 Min. C. President's Report - N. Swazo 5 Min. 2:35 V New Business 5 Min. A. Nomination for President-Elect 2:40 ***BREAK*** 10 Min. Group Photo 2:50 VIII Discussion Items 25 Min. A. Tenure of Department Chairs B. Classified Research 3:15 VII Public Comments/Questions 5 Min. 3:20 VI Committee Reports 15 Min. A. Curricular Affairs - R. Illingworth (Handout) B. Faculty Affairs - P. McRoy (Attachment 107/1) C. Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee Ц H. Eicken (Attachment 107/2) D. Core Review - D. Schamel E. Curriculum Review - P. Pinney F. Developmental Studies - J. Weber (Attachment 107/3) G. Faculty Appeals & Oversight - J. Moessner ` (Attachment 107/4) H. Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement Ц D. McLean-Nelson (Attachment 107/5) 3:35 IX Members' Comments/Questions 5 Min. 3:40 X Adjournment ATTACHMENT 107/1 51╖ч┴ў╣┘═° Faculty Senate #107 March 4, 2002 SUBMITTED BY FACULTY AFFAIRS Faculty Affairs Committee Minutes of the meeting held on February 18, 2002 Members present: Abel Bult, Godwin Chukwu (for Peter McRoy), Joan Leguard, Jennifer McBeath, Roger Smith (by phone) Guests: Bill Bristow, Ted DeLaca, Fairbanks Daily News-Miner Reporter Marmian Grimes Minutes prepared by Abel Bult Godwin chaired the meeting because Peter could not be at the meeting. Godwin started the meeting by clarifying the need for this meeting. The draft motion on classified research, submitted by Norm Swazo, has generated considerable feedback that needs to be addressed. He subsequently opened the meeting up for a general discussion. Bill started off by saying that classified research cannot be discussed in black-and-white terms. He indicated that the current draft motion would make engaging in classified research at 51╖ч┴ў╣┘═° basically impossible. Bill pointed out that there is more to classified research than missile defense and he gave examples such as aurora research that may have some classified components. He also pointed out that the Chancellor could not give security clearances for the proposed committee to evaluate classified research. This would be illegal. Joan followed up with a question about security clearance and whether that part could be modified. Bill discussed that the Chancellor could appoint potential committee members and that they could become members of the committee upon clearance by the appropriate government agency. Roger pointed out that reasonable oversight of classified research by the committee could be done without security clearance. Ted continued the discussion by pointing out that research proposals should not all be treated the same. Some proposals, whether containing classified components or not, may have restrictions that are placed on the work or may restrict the participation of non-US citizens and those issues should be addressed. He indicated that the research should have benefits to 51╖ч┴ў╣┘═° and not penalize or harm students in any way. Roger indicated that the draft motion has too much emphasis on classified and proprietary research and that the motion should address the essence of the issues so that the content can be broadly applicable. Joan asked what the last sentence of the Preamble of the motion really refers to. Godwin remarked that the draft motion is really too general and does not address sufficiently what research is inclusive and what is exclusive. He suggested obtaining input from Ted and others with knowledge of classified research issues. Godwin indicated that it is very important to come up with a motion that can be supported by the Faculty Senate. Roger said that he is willing to participate in the process to draft a motion concerning classified research, but that he also indicated that it might be a quite difficult process, because it really depends upon how you approach particular research. He brought up the question how we can distinguish between classified and non-classified research. Godwin responded that classified research needs to be clearly defined and that it has been defined clearly in the draft motion. Bill referred to the launches that were called off and told us that no 51╖ч┴ў╣┘═° faculty were involved. However, these launches required gravel pads for fuel storage and these will now be used for placement of National Science Foundation funded equipment to be used by 51╖ч┴ў╣┘═° faculty. Roger also added that the launches also provided other research support such as for measuring the rate of ice growth, and it also provided important communications equipment. Joan brought up concerns expressed by an Athabaskan counselor related to the shooting of rockets over Athabaskan lands for which they may not have given permission. She asked whether the ethical implications related to the (called-off) launches had been adequately addressed. Is there someone who checks these issues? Roger responded by saying that the Poker Flats facility has an excellent safety record. Joan referred to several articles that appeared in the newspapers about the rocket launches and Roger commented that those articles should be reviewed before firm conclusions can be drawn. He indicated that rockets launches are evaluated on three issues related to safety and the science. NASA evaluates flight safety issues (1) while the environmental impact is also assessed and evaluated (2). Thirdly, the science is of course also evaluated. In addition, Roger pointed out that the Poker Flats Range has agreements with all (about 30) landowners directly affect by the rocket launches and that those landowners are contacted about major deviations. Godwin subsequently suggested to go over the draft motion and to indicate which parts should be referred back to the Faculty Affairs committee for additional review and discussion. Preamble: The last paragraph is referred back to the committee and it was commented that this section should not have references about specific programs. Roger commented that this section should be more general. Procedures: A. definitions: Were considered adequate. B. Exclusions: sections 1., 2., 3., 4., and 7. were considered adequate. Sections 5., 6., and 8. were referred back to the committee. In reference to graduate students, several participants indicated the importance of notifying graduate students that classified research cannot be used towards fulfillment of degree requirements. In addition, this issue may also be pertinent to graduate students with a military background, although they may have clearance already. C. Use of University facilities: This section appears to be problematic and is referred back to the committee. Joan asked the question how much equipment on campus actually was financed by classified research. D. Security Costs: Ted suggested removing УAllФ because in some instances 51╖ч┴ў╣┘═° would pay for some costs that are part of normal practices. All agreed this was an adequate change. Bill commented that some of those institutional costs might be covered by indirect costs that can be traced back to the sponsor of classified research reducing the overall costs to 51╖ч┴ў╣┘═° even further. E. The committeeТs name was changed to: Advisory Committee on Classified Research. This whole section was referred back to the committee. Godwin suggested inviting Ted to attend the next Faculty Affairs Committee and everyone agreed. Ted had a question related to giving the draft motion to a consultant he might have identified at MIT. Godwin will ask Norm whether that would be fine. Abel commented that it would be good to include an expedited review procedure for those proposals that have a minor classified research component that does not impede the evaluation of the overall proposal. Meeting was adjourned. ATTACHMENT 107/2 51╖ч┴ў╣┘═° Faculty Senate #107 March 4, 2002 SUBMITTED BY GRADUATE ACADEMIC & ADVISORY COMMITTEE Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee (GAAC) Meeting February 14, 2002, 1-2 p.m., IARC 417 Present: Elke Richmond, Gayle Gregory, Chuen-Sen Lin, Lillian Corti, Ed Bueler, Sandra Bond, Colin Read, George Minassian, Hajo Eicken I. New Business (1) Trial courses BIOL 694-Regional System Dynamics and Modeling: This course was unanimously approved (old course that is being replaced should be purged from catalog). BIOL 694 - Scientific Writing, Editing, and Reviewing: This course appears to be timely and appropriate. However, the committee was concerned to what an extent efforts are being duplicated in other Departments or whether a more comprehensive, broader approach is required to address this issue (e.g., English Dept. offering course in Technical Writing etc. at the graduate level). The instructor will be contacted to follow up on these questions prior to next meeting. (2) Applications for new courses: Based on a theme (i.e., that of a lack of awareness or research by course proponents on similar offerings in other departments that could be affected in a positive or negative fashion) common to a large fraction of applications for new courses, the committee wishes to include a further category on application forms for new course offerings, requiring the proponents to state specifically how this course would (1) positively and (2) negatively affect other courses or programs within 51╖ч┴ў╣┘═°. It is not the GAAC's intent to increase the amount of paperwork to be completed in submitting proposals to the committee but rather to foster synergistic, efficient approaches and minimize the amount of uncoordinated, duplicating efforts. II. Old Business (1) Resource commitment form for proposed new degrees Following earlier discussions, the GAAC drafted a Resource commitment form (RCF, see attachment 1) that would have to be signed by the respective Dean prior to submission of a proposal for a new degree program. Such a form would address past problems regarding insufficient or unrealistic assessments of new resources required for viability of new degree program. The intent of the form would be to encourage new-degree program proponents to adequately consider the issue of existing and future resources required for the program, while at the same time providing the GAAC with a record of the additional amount of support committed to in order to ensure viability of a new program. (2)Proposal for a major degree change, Atmospheric Physics The request for a major program change, resulting in a separate Degree Program in Atmospheric Physics, submitted by the Physics Department was unanimously declined. The GAAC's decision was based entirely on the fact that the proposal would have created a new degree program (leaving the Degree Program in Atmospheric Sciences intact) without providing all the input as required by Board of Regents Policy for such an application. The committee felt that irrespective of the particular developments that resulted in this bona-fide application (incl. the Applicants' assumption that in this particular case, the process of degree program "spawning" would qualify as a Major Program Change rather than a Proposal for a New Degree Program), a complete application including discussion of a respective motion on the 51╖ч┴ў╣┘═° Faculty Senate Floor are essential requirements that cannot be waived. However, the committee also acknowledges that the current situation, with the Atmospheric Sciences Program having been relinquished by the Department of Physics into the responsibility of the College of Science, Mathematics and Engineering in order to allow for a restructuring and shift in focus of the Atmospheric Sciences Program but with no explicit major or degree program in Atmospheric Physics in place, is problematic with respect to recruitment and retention of students. The GAAC acknowledges the Physics Department's strong record in the field and recognizes that the current application for a major program change was completed in good faith. ------------------- Attachment I: Draft Form for Commitment of new/additional resources to a proposed new degree program (to be signed by Dean and included with application package to GAAC) (1) Personnel: - Faculty - Adjuncts - Student teaching assistants or student helpers (2) Facilities - Instructional facilities (e.g., smart classroom, laboratory space) - Other facilities or space needs (3) Resources - Computer and networking resources - Communication resources - Library resources * (4) Equipment and supplies -Specific items of equipment (e.g., microscopes, computers etc.) - Supplies specifically required for program * This would only include resources above and beyond those identified in the existing Library item in the application forms (D. Stephens will discuss this item w/ P. McCarthy) ATTACHMENT 107/3 51╖ч┴ў╣┘═° Faculty Senate #107 March 4, 2002 SUBMITTED BY DEVELOPMENTAL STUDIES Minutes of the Developmental Studies Committee February 21, 2002 Attending: Nancy Ayagarak, John Bruder, Rich Carr, John Creed, Cindy Hardy, Marjie Illingworth, Ron Illingworth, Wanda Martin, Mary Matthews (SSSP), Greg Owens, Jake Poole, Jane Weber, Randy Pfeuffer The committee met and addressed the following: Developmental Programs Assessment: The following people have agreed to travel to 51╖ч┴ў╣┘═° to visit and assess our programs: Hunter Boylan Irene Doo David Caverly They will travel on April 2 and will separately visit the Northwest, Chukchi, Bristol Bay, and Kuskokwim Campuses on the 3rd, followed by a visit to the Fairbanks campuses on the 4th and 5th. The committee will meet with all three assessors on April 5 from 2-4 p.m. Jake will be sending out confirmation letters to each of the assessors, and the CRA office will take care of the travel arrangements. Ron and Jane will put together a description of our programs as they are now, based on materials in the accreditation self-study, to send to each of them. The committee is looking forward to this opportunity to get an outside view of what we do now and what we can do to improve our ability to serve developmental students. Space Issues: We have been talking for years about the need to house our main-campus faculty in a central location. At this point, however, we face a crisis finding office space to house even the full-time developmental faculty. Jake reported that the space CRA will be vacating in the Gruening Building, which we had been told was earmarked for Developmental faculty, has since been allotted to other departments. At this point, three full-time faculty and up to ten adjuncts will have no office space or even space to hold office hours by Fall 02. Jake suggested several options that Deb Brownfield proposed to him. Jane and Cindy will meet with her to see what can be done. FY 03 and 04 Initiatives: At this point the committee reviewing the Student Success initiatives has screened the FY04 initiatives that contained the most reasonable proposals and have asked that they go to Phase Three. The Learning Assistance Center is high on the list. Expanded proposals are due in a week (no pressure!). Since the FY04 Learning Assistance Center initiative is a proposal to follow through on the study proposal approved for FY03, we discussed the status of that initiative as well. At this point, FY03 initiatives are waiting for the approval of funding from the legislature. If the funding is approved, it will start in FY03-this July. We will need to act quickly to get a coordinator in place by September 1. We also need to be considering the Learning Assistance Center as we address our space issues. We also discussed the nature of the category, "Student Success," especially in that it does not include faculty, which are addressed under "Academic" initiatives. Again, we seem to be facing a problem of how developmental programs are defined and perceived, and this impacts our ability to accomplish what we feel are our most important goals--developing a coordinated program that includes permanent faculty and centralized, student accessible space. Placement: Wanda reported that the Early Warning program has been analyzing student placement test scores and discovered that most are more than one year old, thus don't provide accurate placement information. She asked that we revisit the issue of mandatory testing for mandatory placement. She suggested that this could provide the basis for an initiative during the next round. Our next meeting will be Friday, April 5, 2-4 p.m. in the Wood Center Memorial Conference Room with the visiting assessors. The following meeting will be a regular committee meeting on Thursday, April 11, 1-2:30 p.m. in the Chancellor's Conference Room. ATTACHMENT 107/4 51╖ч┴ў╣┘═° Faculty Senate #107 March 4, 2002 SUBMITTED BY FACULTY APPEALS & OVERSIGHT Faculty Appeals & Oversight Committee Meeting February 6, 2002 The following members were present: Brian Himelbloom, Victoria Moessner, Glenn Juday, Santanu Khataniar, and Jerry Lipka. We discussed the suggestion of an annual state of the university from the faculty with emphasis upon administrators, the need to know the criteria used in the periodic review of administrators as a basis for developing a policy on censure, the need for arbitration before going to censure, and the need possibly to differentiate among administrators, e.g. a dean is in the middle of the sandwich. Glenn Juday provided the following (beginning) draft of a 51╖ч┴ў╣┘═° Faculty Senate Policy on censure, which we discussed. 1. The review (broadest sense) of the performance of administrators is an important complementary activity to the review of faculty. Both groups contribute to the advancement of the University when they carry out their respective responsibilities effectively, and either can seriously interfere with the proper functioning of the university as a whole when they perform ineffectively. 2. The various peer reviews of faculty, including mentoring of untenured faculty, promotion and tenure review, and post-tenure review as well as continuing, in-depth contact with students equip 51╖ч┴ў╣┘═° faculty with a unique and comprehensive understanding of the general health of the University and its actual progress in meeting its stated goals. 3. In a system of shared governance, the administrative function includes a critical catalytic role which, when performed well, results in the accomplishments of academic units surpassing the sum of individual faculty effort. 4. 51╖ч┴ў╣┘═° faculty are in a unique position to offer insights on the effectiveness of academic administrators of particular and campus-wide programs at 51╖ч┴ў╣┘═°. They can readily see whether their efforts to teach, conduct research, and provide professional service are enhanced, not affected, or compromised by academic administrators. 5. Faculty input into periodic reviews of academic administrators is provided for, although the system for accomplishing reviews is relatively new and lacking in a record of experience upon which to make judgements. 6. As responsible members of the academic community, 51╖ч┴ў╣┘═° Faculty have an inherent responsibility when circumstances warrant to publicly issue through appropriate representative bodies, statements on the .... 7. From here we would then develop a policy on censure or sense of the Senate resolution. Before we can continue our work, we would like to have some feedback. Are we heading in the right direction? ATTACHMENT 107/5 51╖ч┴ў╣┘═° Faculty Senate #107 March 4, 2002 SUBMITTED BY FACULTY DEVELOPMENT, ASSESSMENT & IMPROVEMENT FDAI Committee Minutes January 22, 2002 meeting The meeting was called to order at 11:35 am by Tom Robinson. Present: Tom Robinson, Joy Morrison, Abel Bult, Jim Collins, Ann Wilson, C. P. Price. Debi McLean and George Charles were excused. The minutes of the December 4, 2001 meeting were approved as presented. Old Business: The Provost had asked us to consider the matter of individuals who apply for "early tenure" (at or before the time of the 4th year review). We recapitulated our prior comments about not constraining truly qualified candidates with an arbitrary rule. We endorsed the Provost's recommendation that all new faculty go through the 4th year review. There was discussion about a possible motion to the Faculty Senate that more emphasis is needed on annual reviews, which would facilitate assembly of all major review documents (4th year, P/T). We agreed that the Provost's Council should convey to the Deans that all new faculty go through the 4th year review, since the applications for promotion and tenure are submitted to the Deans. New Business: The committee was presented with copies of Dan Wheeler's report faculty professional development needs. In order for all members to have the opportunity to make meaningful comments, the review of that report was deferred until the next meeting. Joy Morrison reported on her upcoming conference travel: she and Eric Heyne are leaving tonight for the AAHE conference on "Faculty Roles and Rewards", following which she will attend a Department Head conference with 5 current department heads. One of the conditions on attending the latter is that the department heads present a workshop in March. Bob Lucas is scheduled to make presentations at 51╖ч┴ў╣┘═° on March 12-13, 2002. (He will also visit UAS on 3/11/02 and UAA on 3/14-15/02.) His presentations last year were well received and interested faculty are encouraged to register now for this year's presentations; seating is limited to 25 individuals. The Office of Sponsored Programs is make a presentation today on grant writing. UAA has sponsored a talk on "Cyber Plagiarism" on March 8, 2002. Joy is trying to get it teleconferenced here. The recent self-study evaluation report highlighted a need for both a faculty and a staff handbook. The Office of Faculty Development has been preparing an on-line faculty handbook during this year. The members of the committee were requested to visit the 51╖ч┴ў╣┘═° Faculty Handbook website http://www.uaf.edu/provost/test/ and to provide substantive feedback to the next meeting. Another concern was how 51╖ч┴ў╣┘═° can promote other methods of evaluation. The committee will return to this topic in conjunction with the review of Dan Wheeler's report next meeting. There were no other new business issues. The present meeting time conflicts with the teaching schedule of at least one member of the committee. Consequently, we moved the meeting time to 2:30 p.m. - 3:30 p.m. on Tuesday. We decided that the committee will schedule future meetings on February 26, March 26 and April 23. After wishing Tom Robinson all the best as he prepares for medical treatment this Friday, we adjourned at 12:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted by C. P. Price, 22 January 2002. VbБВчшo Х I(J(](Г(╕()Ю)Я)░)Є)\*Ф*4,U,3/E/{/(2c2М8(9)9899О9Ў9:Y:t:и;╬;ё;Є;"KHKpKqK╠UЄU,V-V/Vрbсb№№№···№№°ЎЎЎ°ЎЎЇЇЇЇЇ······э CJOJQJ5Б6Б>*;Б5Б>*4-@TUVbВШо╨чш*Sklе╛╓ #:c~╡¤¤¤¤¤¤°°°°°°¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤$a$-@TUVbВШо╨чш*Sklе╛╓ #:c~╡ф 8 V W r а ╦ ¤ ■ ' K L s Б В Г н ═ х ц   H z м у ∙  8 p Я ╢ ы   F G H [ \ ] o З Х ▓ │ ┤ ╬   tu╩╦щъы12:;YZєЇЦЧfg√e╡ф 8 V W r а ╦ ¤ ■ ' K L s Б В Г н ═ х ц   H z м у ∙  ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 8 p Я ╢ ы   F G H [ \ ] o З Х ▓ │ ┤ ╬   tu╩╦щ¤¤¤¤¤є¤¤¤¤¤¤¤эээээ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤Д№■]Д№■ ДаД╨^Да`Д╨щъы12:;YZєЇЦЧfg√№┴┬эюг д z!{!▒!▓!И#¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤√№┴┬эюг д z!{!▒!▓!И#Й#]$^$┌%█%f&g&╟&╚&a'b'1(2(I(J(K(](u(Г(╖(╕(╣(Ё())Ю)Я)п)░)├)[*\*3,4,2/3/D/E/{/&2'2(2c2h8i8}8Л8М8(9)989B9M9~99О9╙9ї9Ў9:(:B:X:Y:t:╡:т:у:Ф;Х;Ц;и;└;╬;ё;Є;є;"<4<5<■< <.=/=R=S=з=┼=▀=eИ#Й#]$^$┌%█%f&g&╟&╚&a'b'1(2(I(J(K(](u(Г(╖(╕(╣(Ё())Ю)Я)п)¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ўўўўўўўЇЇЇЇЇЇЇ1$Д№■]Д№■п)░)├)[*\*3,4,2/3/D/E/{/&2'2(2c2h8i8}8Л8М8(9)989B9M9~99О9╙9№№№№№№№№№№№№№№№№№№№№№№№№№№№№№1$╙9ї9Ў9:(:B:X:Y:t:╡:т:у:Ф;Х;Ц;и;└;╬;ё;Є;є;"<4<5<■< <.=/=R=№№№№№№№№№№№№№·ЇЇЇЇЇЇ········Д№■]Д№■1$R=S=з=┼=▀=¤=■= ? ?-@.@╫@╪@ц@ч@ГCДCЮCЯC╦D╠D┼F╞FЛHМHЧHШH J JЙJ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤▀=¤=■= ? ?-@.@╫@╪@ц@ч@ГCДCЮCЯC╦D╠D┼F╞FЛHМHЧHШH J JЙJКJKKK"K:KHKqKrKsKбK▓K│K┤K/L0L╜M╛M3N4N╖O╕OQQЎQўQASBSTTэTюTIUJUKUСU╕U╣U║U╠UфUЄU-V.V/VFV_V`VЮV$W%WnWoW}W\Z]ZkZb[c[─\┼\°]∙]╝^╜^ъ`ы`aa/b0bжbзb▀bрb■№№№№№№№№№№№№№№№№№№№№№№№№№№№№№№ dЙJКJKKK"K:KHKqKrKsKбK▓K│K┤K/L0L╜M╛M3N4N╖O╕OQQЎQўQASBS¤¤¤ўўўўў¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤Д№■]Д№■BSTTэTюTIUJUKUСU╕U╣U║U╠UфUЄU-V.V/VFV_V`VЮV$W%WnWoW}W\Z]Z¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ўўўў¤¤їїїїїїїїїїїД№■]Д№■]ZkZb[c[─\┼\°]∙]╝^╜^ъ`ы`aa/b0bжbзb▀bрbсb¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤√рbсb# 0P░╨/ ░р=!░а"░а#Ра$Р╨%░|HH┌( с с∙EG(№HH┌(d'`Р@ i4@ё 4NormalCJOJQJkH'mH <A@Є б<Default Paragraph Font, Є,Footer  ╞р└!,,Header  ╞р└!&)@в& Page Number&■"&sp3 OJQJkH'D■2DHeadings$dрa$5БCJOJQJkH╡J■BJ Paragraph$Дhdр`Дha$CJOJQJkH╡J■RJagenda+ ╞╨<─"Дф¤ДД°°]Дф¤^Д`Д°°B■bBCINDY ╞Д0¤ДД]Д0¤^ДД OJQJkH'H■rHindex! ╞╕p !x#р$)Д|№]Д|№ 5Б>*CJ<■В< page number2CJOJQJkH'`■qТ`index2; ╞╕px#р$)╨╝<,$|)Д0¤Д╨Д0¤]Д0¤^Д╨`Д0¤5Б>*R■вR index heading ╞l !x#р$)Д|№]Д|№5БCJ8Z@▓8 Plain TextCJOJPJQJс\Д%Д  аzЩ  аzЩ  аzЩ  аzЩ  аzЩ  аzЩ  аzЩ  аzЩ   аzЩ   аzЩ   аzЩ   аzЩ   аzЩ  аzЩГ^!юL"п*ї3Ч5╛<EAM╗O∙Wс\*u╡w┼    ├ сb2╡ щИ#п)╙9R=ЙJBS]Zсb35679:;<>?@√▀=рbсb48=A╖╜╗┬ыї(2P(V( --ї6¤6╛7─7█7▐7ї7№7'=*=кUпU╒Y▄Yу\   Governance2Macintosh HD:Meetings 01-02:Meeting 107:Agenda 107 Governance2Macintosh HD:Meetings 01-02:Meeting 107:Agenda 107 Governance2Macintosh HD:Meetings 01-02:Meeting 107:Agenda 107 Governance2Macintosh HD:Meetings 01-02:Meeting 107:Agenda 107 Governance2Macintosh HD:Meetings 01-02:Meeting 107:Agenda 107 Governance2Macintosh HD:Meetings 01-02:Meeting 107:Agenda 107 Governance2Macintosh HD:Meetings 01-02:Meeting 107:Agenda 107 Governance2Macintosh HD:Meetings 01-02:Meeting 107:Agenda 107 Governance3Macintosh HD:Meetings 01-02:Meeting 107:fsag107.rtfElizabeth SolanoEMacintosh HD:Desktop Folder:uafgov:faculty:fsfy02meetings:fsag107.rtfу\ @АМ─IВс\@ @GРTimes New Roman5РАSymbol3Р Arial5Р Geneva9РMNew York3РTimes?1РM Courier New"C Аї╨ы╦b&╠b&в╦b&o ХL'Гг$Аї;Де└┤┤А0d ^K8Аї;Д▀  FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:Governance OfficeElizabeth Solano■  рЕЯЄ∙OhлС+'│┘0ШРШ└╠шЇ , H T ` lxАИР'FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:iOR Governance OfficeONoveNormalnElizabeth SolanoON3izMicrosoft Word 9.0N@@d▒цT╛┴@BSК^╛┴@2╓ d╛┴o ХL■  ╒═╒Ь.УЧ+,∙о0 hpДМФЬ дм┤╝ ─ я' GovernanceIг' ^Ф FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT: Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@AB■   DEFGHIJK■   MNOPQRS■   UVWXYZ[■   ¤   ^■   ■   ■                                                                                                                               Root Entry         └F;ў╔╛┴`А1Table        CWordDocument        бДSummaryInformation(    LDocumentSummaryInformation8            TCompObj            X                        ■                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           ■      └FMicrosoft Word Document■   NB6WWord.Document.8