ࡱ> ? jbjb =}}lXXXXXXX IWWWWWWWW,)Y I[z4WX4W XX FXXW l00XXXXW p hr=XXV|LwVV IWIWV[ [V MINUTES 51 FACULTY SENATE MEETING #106 MONDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2002 WOOD CENTER BALLROOM I The meeting was called to order by President Swazo at 1:40 p.m. A. ROLL CALL Members Present: Members Absent: Barnhardt, C. Chukwu, G. Bond, S. Gladden, J. Bristow, W. Kramer, D. Bruder, J. (A. Wilson) Lincoln, T. Bueler, E. Mason, J. Bult, A. McBeath, J. Curda, L. McRoy, P. Davis, M. Metz, P. Eicken, H. Roth, M. Hannigan, M. Schatz, M. Holton, G. Whiteledge, T. Illingworth, R. Zilberkant, E. Leguard, J. Lin, C. OTHERS PRESENT: Lindahl, M. Collins, R. McLean-Nelson, D. Craven, J. Murray, M. DeLaca, T. Pinney, P. Gold, C. Swazo, N. Fritz, S. Weber, J. Henrichs, S. Layral, S. Lind, M. Nielson, H. O'Neill, D. Reichardt, P. Scott, G. Walker, G. NON-VOTING MEMBERS PRESENT: NON-VOTING MEMBERS ABSENT: Miller, D. - President, AS51 Graduate Student, GSO Leipzig, J. - Dean, CLA (Eric Heyne, Assoc. Dean) McCrea, S. -President, 51SC Collins, J. - Dean, SOM Tremarello, A - Registrar B. The minutes to Meeting #105 (December 10, 2001) were approved with the addition of Mike Hannigan as present at all past meetings. C. The agenda was approved as distributed via e-mail. II Status of Chancellor's Office Actions A. Motions approved: 1. Motion to amend the procedure for votes of censure. 2. Motion to approve the Certificate in Medical Billing and Coding. 3. Motion to approve the deletion of the B.Ed. 4. Motion to amend the AAS degree requirements. 5. Motion to amend the AA degree requirements. 6. Motion to amend the Natural Science requirement of the Baccalaureate Core Curriculum. 7. Motion to approve the deletion of the MAT, Elementary. 8. Motion to approve the Master's in Software Engineering. B. Motions forwarded to President's Office: 1. Motion to recommend that the UA Board of Regents' amend the UA non-discrimination statement. III A. Comments from Chancellor, Marshall Lind - Chancellor Lind stated that he supported the rationale for the motion on recommending that the UA Board of Regents amend the UA non-discrimination statement. He had no objection to moving it forward to the Board of regents. However, he did have some reservation about the need for language change. To the best of his knowledge the current language seems to be working and he felt it was not necessary at this time. Chancellor Lind wanted to be sure that everyone will see that they will not be discriminated against while either a student or an employee of our university. There is good news in terms of enrollment; it is the best spring in the past three years in terms of increase. Overall we are just under 4% with headcount and credit hours. TVC has done exceptionally well this spring. Overall our tuition increase is up 7.4% from a year ago. It is important to have the opportunity to show that indeed things are happening with the enrollment as a result of the money that the legislature has invested in the University over the past few years. It also means that we need to focus on our enrollment management plan. This will be one of the topics of discussion this week at the statewide management academy. This is a top item for 51. Starting tomorrow the UA Academy will hold a three-day management retreat. There will be a number of panel presentations relating to issues related to Alaska. Everything from health care to education, humanities, natural resource development, communication information, transportation, construction and engineering. We will have Leon Panetta as the keynote speaker. On Wednesday there will be specific group discussions/presentations regarding students, academic programs, human resources, research, technology and facilities. On Thursday they will finish with the topic of enrollment management. Chancellor Lind just learned of two awards received by faculty members. Sukumar Bandopadhyay has been designated as a 2002 distinguished member of the Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration. Will Harrison of the Geophysical Institute received the title of Fellow from the American Geophysical Union at its annual meeting. Less than one-tenth of one percent of members of that organization receive this honor. It is too early to tell where we are going in terms of the Legislature and the budget. Chancellor Lind's general observation is that right now their focus is on the matter of the budget and additional revenue sources. That is the real decision that they need to come to grips with and we need to encourage our elected official to deal that issue. We don't expect to hear from the legislature about the operating request or capital budget until later. We are hopeful that our request will be given favorable support. A final comment is the recent accreditation of our program in the School of Agriculture and Land Resources Management. The Forestry program was given a good accreditation review by the Society of American Foresters. B. Comments from Provost, Paul Reichardt - Provost Reichardt indicated that the Deans and Directors have been given copies of two documents related to our institutional accreditation. One is the official letter from the commission that reaffirms our accreditation and contains an outline of the report of the committee. The second is a 54-page report provided by the evaluation committee. It contains detailed recommendation and concerns. The documents are an internal document to be used freely by the institution. The major follow up of 51 is outlined in the handout "Issues from Self-Study". This is the set of issues that have been put together as coming from the self-study. It is Provost Reichardt's intention to keep the spreadsheet up to date as to the status of our response to the issue. Four issues--# 4, 11, 19, and 20--are recommendations from the Association to which we must respond by Fall 2003. They include degree program assessment, faculty & staff handbook, records, and related instruction for certificate programs. Another handout from the Provost includes a memo from him through the Chancellor to the President concerning the FY04 Academic Initiatives. Included is a spreadsheet that outlines the approximately $3 million operating budget initiatives that have been endorsed by the Chancellor's Cabinet and forwarded to the statewide administration. The final topic came out of a meeting that the three Provosts had with the President. The President's next area of internal emphasis will probably be that when it comes to initiatives, budget, progress--it's now time to help ourselves in addition to asking the legislature to help us. It particular the President notes that the enrollment increases we have had since the initiative process began are modest and are almost entirely in the area of part-time and non-traditional students. Many of the initiatives and initial enrollment management plans seem to be focused on the full-time students and graduate students. He sees this as a disconnect. He sees an eventual problem developing between the university and the legislature and the public as they look at why they believe they have made these investments and what we have done with them. The President will begin to talk about strategic reallocations within the university and questioning what we do with the money that becomes available with increased tuition, increased return of indirect cost, and money that is freed up when faculty leave and retire. Ron Illingworth asked about the other areas of the FY04 initiatives--those that dealt with student support and distance delivery. Reichardt indicated that distance delivery, information technology, student services, professional development are four more areas. The idea is that to a certain extent they should be tied to the academic initiatives. There is a different process for those four groups. The process is that within each university each group will develop its own set of initiatives. Pete Pinney asked what is the best format or direction of comments in supporting non-traditional and part-time students in the academic initiatives. What is the most appropriate way to advocate for their needs? Provost Reichardt indicated that looking at the recent initiatives there is a healthy portion devoted to voc-tech programs which do attract the part-time students. The student services end is harder to address. This will be a focus of the enrollment management discussion this week. Ron Illingworth spoke about the timetable for related instruction. It has been discussed by the CRA Faculty Council as most of the certificate programs are within their college. C. Guest Speaker - Ted DeLaca, Vice Provost for Research Norm Swazo indicated that Roger Smith was also asked to address the Senate and because of scheduling conflicts was not able to be here. He will join us at another meeting. Attached to the agenda is a memorandum from Ted DeLaca to Provost Reichardt. Ted DeLaca indicated that the memorandum was intended for a small audience as a result of some meetings he attended. The University has taken on study of its compliance issues being involved with federal research projects. These may include animal care, human subjects and being involved with ITAR. Ted DeLaca wished to addressed a couple of issues. The issue of classified research and the university's role is quite more complicated than it has been spoken of in regard to the Poker Flat project. We are talking about a classified project at Poker Flat that was going to be run by the Department of Defense (DOD), not classified research. The research that was going to be involved by 51 researchers was non-classified research. The project was going to be using our facilities. The other issue becomes the nature of the research to be done, that was rocket related. To broaden discussion, please recall that a lot of the research that we do is using equipment or assets which have classified aspect to them. The research itself may not be occurring on university facilities and might be by faculty that are not dealing with the classified aspect of the experiment. Many of our researchers may use classified research facilities. These facilities may be classified because it has access to areas of environmental studies. Then there is the actual involvement of investigators in classified research whether it occurs on campus or at some other facility. In the past we have been working under national security decision directive 189. This is the national policy on the transfer of scientific technical and engineering information that President Reagan signed in 1989. It concerns fundamental research as the conduct of basic scientific engineering research, the results of which are to be published or otherwise made available to interested scientific community. It also establishes that fundamental research conducted by the US academies in basic science and engineering is to be excluded from the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR). There is a recognition that American universities work in an open setting. Things changed recently in the wake of the Cox Report and the Los Alamos spying allegations. There has been a recent turn for universities previously involved in classified research to not be involved in such research anymore. Ted DeLaca came away from a meeting last year and did a basic survey of approximately 21 universities. Roughly five universities allowed classified research; five universities would not allow classified research to be conducted on their campuses, and about half of the universities allowed classified research under some circumstances. Other areas of concern are listed in memo. There is a clearance required for the users of the ARSC, which is called the public trust clearance. We do have a part-time person looking after this, Gary Yee, who is now working with the GI and provides debriefing. If the university is to continue or to become further involved in classified research, then it is absolutely imperative that the university be prepared to invest significant money to assure that it is done properly. It becomes important that we have as part of the university back up an educational program that assures our people understand what is going on here and act appropriately. Debi McLean-Nelson asked if our draft policy is comparable to other universities who allow regulated classified research. Ted DeLaca indicated that it was very similar. As Director of Sponsored Programs he sees a need to inform proposal participants that it is important to allow adequate time to meet deadlines. The issue of providing input to the Chancellor to make a decision as to whether a proposal has enough value to the institution to warrant the responsibility taken on becomes critical. Norm Swazo clarified that the Board of Regents policy clearly allows for classified and proprietary research. What is absent is a promulgated regulation that governs the way in which such research would occur. What we are doing is looking at a draft institutional procedure for 51, which is not equivalent to a Board of Regents regulation. Joan Leguard asked about the expectation of 51 to be involved in classified research in biology and nanotechnology. Ted DeLaca thought not. Proprietary research is very likely. The various DOD laboratories are well suited to do most of the classified research. They make opportunities available for non-classified research to be done which is complementary to what they are doing. He doesn't see 51 becoming a large-scale classified research unit. There are certain areas of expertise and by virtue of our high latitude/geographic location, which lends itself well to doing certain kinds of things. Hajo Eicken asked if you have a data set that includes a component that is classified, would that fall under the category of classified research, such as where the exact data points are collected. Ted DeLaca indicated that many of these data sets are available for publication; some are still classified. IV Governance Reports A. AS51 - D. Miller Derek Miller reported that AS51 had a retreat at the beginning of the semester and set out our strategy for the rest of the semester and set up some goals. Also talked about the issues of concern that they will be dealing with this semester. Recent events include the Blood drive. The Student Saver Program has expanded to 16 companies. The TVC representation is going very well. Robert Bailie is the TVC relation's director. Jake Poole and Scott McCrea are very happy with the performance of Robert Bailie. The Executive Branch and AS51 Senate are working well together. They are having a weekly executive meeting. There is a full Senate now with 20 members. Derek Miller will also be attending the UA Academy. As chair of the System Governance Council he will be looking at the non-traditional and part-time student issues. He would like to invite faculty to attend any of the Senate meeting on Sunday evening. The Senate is looking at nomination for faculty awards. Derek Miller introduced the Coalition of Student Leaders/Legislative Affairs Coordinator, Britt Arnesen. Britt Arnesen spoke about the grass-roots legislative strategy. She distributed yellow cards "Minds at Work" which indicated support for the full funding of the University budget. The students play a big role in influencing the legislature. The road show will be to get cards signed. At the end of the road show students will be delivering the cards to the legislature. A rally is planned in Wood Center on February 19th as a send off. The card drive is intended as a way to get mass amounts of voters to support the university. Cards can be dropped off at Wood Center or at the System Governance Office by February 15th. B. Staff Council - S. McCrea Scott McCrea was unavailable to give a report. C. President's Comments - N. Swazo No comments. D. President-Elect's Comments - G. Chukwu Comments were attached to the agenda. E. Academic Liaison - C. Gold Carol Gold wished to underline what Provost Reichardt said about Hamilton's renewed emphasis on non-traditional/part-time students. Hamilton wants us to think about ways to focus on more of these students and serving them better. From a faculty perspective how can we include this in our workloads and get appropriate recognition for promotion/tenure. We might want to set up our own faculty committee to discuss this issue. This is an area where we can expand in terms of part-time, non-traditional, non-credit, non-degree seeking students. There is only a limited number of traditional students. The Distance Educator award nominations are due to the System Governance Office by March 15th. The Academic Liaison position for next year is also open. Nominations are due to the 51 Governance Office by March 1st. Information on both of these nominations is available at: http://gov.alaska.edu/faculty/academicliaison/ Ron Illingworth commented on the perception of part-time students throughout the university system. What we really have is a group of students that are full-time committed students to the university. But, because the University regulations, policies, and procedures are of certain types, they are relegated to a part-time situation. Many of them have jobs. We need to look at what our perception is and how we treat these students. It takes students about seven year to get a four year degree if they are doing it by distance delivery. If a student does not take classes for one semester, the university considers that they have dropped--a stop-out--that they are not actively enrolled in the university. Things like that need to be looked at. Carol Gold indicated that she would be happy to be a collection point for this information. We need some concrete suggestions about what to do. Norm Swazo indicated that there is a number of topics that will be discussed at the Enrollment Management workshops. Suggestions about recruitment and retention should be forwarded to Carla Kirts as well. Mike Sfraga in Statewide is also coordinating material on enrollment management. This is a statewide issue. V New Business A. Motion to approve the M.A. degree program in Applied Linguistics, submitted by the Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee Hajo Eicken introduced the motion indicating that this proposal addresses two needs. One is the increasing need for English as a Second Language instructors and the other is educating new generations of native language teachers. He felt it was a very well prepared proposal. Eric Heyne clarified that there is no department of Linguistics; it is a program only. Hajo Eicken stated that a memo from John Leipzig addressed this concern. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION: ====== The 51 Faculty Senate moves to approve a M.A. degree program in Applied Linguistics, which includes four new courses. EFFECTIVE: Fall 2002 or Upon Board of Regents' Approval RATIONALE: See full program proposal #3-6 and #7 on file in the Governance Office, 312 Signers Hall. (Submitted by Linguistics, ANLP, English, and Foreign Languages) 3. NEW COURSE: LING 603 - Phonetics and Phonology (3+0) 3 credits; offered Alternate Fall; first offered Fall 2004. 4. NEW COURSE: LING 604 - Morphology & Syntax (3+0) 3 credits; offered Alternate Spring; first offered Spring 2003. 5. NEW COURSE: LING 652 - Linguistic Applications (3+0) 3 credits; offered Alternate Year; first offered Fall 2003. 6. NEW COURSE: LING 660 - Internship, 3 credits; offered once a year; first offered Spring 2004. 7. NEW DEGREE PROGRAM: MA, Applied Linguistics - Consists of 4 new core courses, LING 603, LING 604, LING 652, LING 660. Program will require minimum of 30 credits including a 6 credit Thesis or Applied Language Project. Effective Fall 2002 or upon BOR approval. M.A., Applied Linguistics The Linguistics Program, with the Alaska Native Language Center, the English Department, and the Foreign Languages and Literatures Department, proposes a Master of Arts degree in Applied Linguistics with emphases in Language Teaching and Materials Development. This degree program will allow 51 to meet the growing need statewide for qualified language teachers in Native languages, world languages, and English as a second language. The primary candidates for the degree program are students who intend to teach adults at the community college level, to work on materials and curriculum for Alaska Native languages, or to teach abroad--jobs for which K-12 certification is not required. Additionally, the proposed program will appeal to language teachers who already are certified and who seek a Masters of Arts degree. B. Motion on Master Plan, submitted by Faculty Affairs Abel Bult indicated that the Faculty Affairs Committee met with the Master Planning Committee twice. The Committee is asking for a delay in implementation of the Draft Master Plan so that students, faculty and staff can have more input into the plan. A memo was sent to the Master Planning Committee with some of the problems that the Faculty Affairs Committee saw with the plan. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION: ====== The 51 Faculty Senate moves to request that the Chancellor delay by one semester the schedule of implementation of the Draft Master Plan to allow modifications based on recommendations and comments from faculty, staff and students. EFFECTIVE: Immediately RATIONALE: The full draft of a new Master Plan was presented to the university community in October of 2001. The Faculty Affairs Committee took up the review of this draft and produced a review in December. The Master Planning Committee has a January date for publication of the hard-copy version of the Master Plan. This publication schedule does not allow for adequate consideration of new comments and recommendations. Faculty Affairs met with representatives of the Master Planning Committee in December and January and in each case was informed that it was really too late to consider any substantive changes to the Plan. The Faculty Affairs Committee has received numerous comments about the new draft plan and introduces this motion to ensure adequate review before implementation of any new Master Plan. Given the usual pace of university governance, the Faculty Affairs Committee views the inadequate time for review a shortfall in the master plan process. **** VI Discussion Items A. Joint 51/UAA Ph.D. degree programs - Susan Henrichs Susan Henrichs indicated that this is an information item only to the Senate. Provost Reichardt and Chancellor Lind asked a committee to draft some guidelines, which would be a starting point for negotiations with UAA. Ever since the University system was established, 51 has been the only campus to grant a Ph.D. Now there are certain programs in Anchorage which are beginning to have the strength to offer a Ph.D. degree. They are not at the level of strength, which most institutions have overall to offer Ph.D. degrees. The idea is that in a cooperative mode these degrees may be offered with participation in Anchorage but also support and participation from Fairbanks. The draft guidelines were prepared based on a similar sort of arrangement that exists within the California State system. Pete Pinney expressed concern that the community college mission is lost. Resources has been taken away from lower division classes to develop and expand advanced degree programs. Susan Henrichs indicated that the issue of resources must be addressed with new funding. Hajo Eicken asked about the administrative viewpoint on this issue. Carol Gold indicated that these draft guidelines have been shared with SAC (the three Provosts) and the Faculty Alliance. President Hamilton is very concerned about exactly the things that Pete Pinney just spoke on--that we not lose site of the community college mission. And the question is how do we do both at once. Who is going to be what to whom is an issue that the Board of Regents is discussing. Norm Swazo indicated that the Faculty Alliance was asked by Regent Croft to present some answers to some questions related to a variety of issues that are of concern to him and the Regents in relationship to a strategic plan. Abel Bult asked if the committee is looking into possible effect on the 51 Ph.D. programs. It is difficult to recruit Ph.D. students to 51, so we might lose some of those to UAA. Susan Henrichs said that it is not envisioned that these joint Ph.D. programs would be established in any field where 51 already has a Ph.D. The idea is now to begin with those fields where each individual institution may not be quite strong enough to have a Ph.D. on its own, but where together they might offer one successfully. Fields that have been talked about most so far are English and Psychology. ------------------ The following handout was distributed for discussion. 1st Draft for Discussion PROPOSED GUIDELINES FOR NEGOTIATING AND CONDUCTING JOINT DOCTORAL PROGRAMS The 51 is the only Ph.D. granting institution in the State of Alaska. 51 may agree with other campuses in the UA system to award joint Ph.D. degrees in selected fields. Joint doctoral programs can involve institutions with different organizational cultures, perspectives, and priorities. These differences can yield a program richer in academic opportunities than any single institution could create, but they require program developers to be especially ingenious, persistent, and respectful. It is critically important in the development and operation of joint doctoral programs that partners have equal status. Below are some principles that are intended as a guide for the University of Alaska faculty members and administrators who are negotiating and conducting joint doctoral programs. AWARDING OF DEGREE Graduates will receive a doctoral degree awarded by the Regents of the University of Alaska in the name of the partnering Major Academic Units. STUDENTS Admission. The criteria for admission need to be established jointly by the partner institutions, and the admission decision should be made jointly. From the students perspective, there should be a single, unified process for admission to the joint doctoral program. The student should apply just once to the joint doctoral programthe application should include all the information needed by any partner institutionand receive just one confirmation of admission decision (e.g., admission, conditional admission, wait-listing, or rejection). Any faculty admissions committee should include representation from 51 and representation from its partner. Once admitted, the student will be matriculated at 51 and a minimum of one other partner institution. Fees. Partnering institutions need to have a clear agreement on which institution(s) should receive payment(s) of tuition/fees and what charges apply. If a joint doctoral student is enrolled in courses at just one partner institution during a single academic term, it is expected that the student will register and pay tuition/fees at that institution. The agreement, however, should also cover the case in which a student is enrolled in courses at more than one partner institution simultaneously for all or part of an academic term. The interim institutional agreement needs to be consistent with all applicable laws and policies, including policies on minimum residence credit at partner institutions (see below). Program Advisement. At each partnering institution one or more persons who are thoroughly familiar with all operational aspects of the joint doctoral program (academic and logistic) should be designated as joint program student advisors. The individuals serving in this capacity at the different institutions should maintain regular communication. Residency. Joint doctoral programs usually have agreements on minimum residency. Being in residence or earning residence credit needs to be defined carefully. The definition may or may not involve physical presence at a partnering institution. It must be coordinated with fee payment and enrollment policies. FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATORS The program needs to have a jointly developed set of criteria to describe faculty members qualified to participate in the program, and the process of applying the criteria should be conducted jointly. The roles of deans and chairs in joint doctoral programs also should be delineated explicitly. COURSES, EXAMINATIONS, AND DISSERTATIONS Courses and Course Requirements. Curricular requirements need to be established jointly, and the partners should plan the timing and delivery mode of course offerings at all partnering institutions to ensure that students can meet the requirements within a reasonable timeframe. Both 51 and partner institutions will offer post-masters-level courses in the joint doctoral program. Procedures for adding courses or changing requirements need to be specified. Examinations. The partners should spell out the nature and consequences of qualifying examinations, including how their development is shared and what happens to students who fail all or part of an examination. Dissertations. Dissertation standards and procedures should be jointly established and administered. They should be specific enough to indicate the types of research deemed acceptable. Dissertation committees (or other student-specific committees) will ordinarily include at least one faculty member from 51 and one from a partner institution. Exceptions should be approved by a group that includes representation from both 51 and partner institutions. DECISION-MAKING 51 and its partner(s) must agree on decision-making processes for the program, including the entities having responsibility for making each type of decision and procedures for the resolution of differences. Committees that make decisions for the program as a whole (e.g., admissions, curricular coordination and modification, administrative coordination and procedural modification) should include representation from both 51 and the partner institution(s). ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROGRAM Ordinarily, there will be one co-director whose primary affiliation is with 51 and one co-director whose primary affiliation is with a non-51 partnering institution. If more than two institutions are in partnership, the program may have additional co-directors or a small group advising the co-directors on administration of the program. It is desirable for each co-director to have extensive knowledge of his or her own institutions policies and procedures and critical for the co-directors to be in frequent communication. A memorandum of understanding to guide the administration of the joint doctoral program, covering the elements listed above, must be agreed upon by all parties. Updating of the MOU should be considered periodically. B. Classified Research Norm Swazo opened the discussion of three items: 1) What Ted DeLaca had to say either in his comments today or his memo attached to the agenda; 2) The Geophysical Institute Arctic Debris Experiment public information issues; 3) the draft motion on classified research. Comments on the draft motion can be submitted to the Faculty Senate email address so that they can be forwarded to the Faculty Affairs committee members. Bill Bristow indicated that if we are going to do a survey we need to look at the top 100 research institutions in the US. Joan Leguard indicated that a cost benefit analysis needs to be done on participating in classified research. Abel Bult stated that it is a sensitive issue and that 51's image can be hurt by reports. He further reported from a colleague who opposed the university's participation in classified research. It goes against the mandate of the university to produce knowledge and provide information available to all. It is a serious issue for promotion and tenure. Hajo Eicken pointed out that the draft motion and Ted DeLaca's comments make clear how difficult this issue is. He would like to caution people that there are two levels to look at. One is the personal individual level and the second is the political level. A university is a mirror of society. We cannot remove ourselves from the discussion that needs to go on as a part of a healthy open society. Norm Swazo clarified that the Board of Regents' policy permits both classified and proprietary research. The next question is what do we do if we have faculty who want to participate in this type of research. The proposal that was recommended from GI renewed this issue. Last spring Larry Duffy and Norm Swazo attended a discussion at the GI about the proposed Arctic Missile Signature Program. 51 does not have any guidelines governing how we will participate in this type of research. We are now faced with what happened in the public discussion about the Arctic Dispersion Experiment. The University has a public responsibility and we have to respond to the public's concern. We have to be sure that we have the public's trust in what we are doing. If we wish to do classified research then we have to show them we are prepared to do this in a way that is responsible. If that means putting a procedure in place, then we need to do that. What you have is a first draft of a way of articulating and representing the various concerns that have been raised. We need everyone's help in identifying all the issues. Joan Leguard asked about 51 guidelines of proposals. She also asked about security clearances. Mike Davis, as a member of the Faculty Affairs Committee, appreciates any comments made on this issue. Bill Bristow has talked with Roger Smith about this issue. The Arctic Dispersion project was a classified research by researchers here. It was use of our facilities to do an experiment (launch a rocket) by DOD. As a faculty member he benefits from use of other DOD facilities. The university benefits from use of instruments sited on military bases all over. He then read a statement about benefits of participation in classified research. He would like to see participation by the researchers who are potentially involved in the research. Norm Swazo reminded him that all faculty are welcome at all committee meetings to present comments and give information on issues before them. Faculty Affairs will undertake this issue. Roger Smith is the administrative liaison on that committee. ------------------------ Bill Bristow On Classified research: As an engineering representative from the College of Science, Engineering and Mathematics, I feel that I should contribute to the current debate regarding classified research. The reason that I feel compelled to comment is that engineers and scientist are the ones who will be directly affected by the results of this debate. I personally will be affected by this debate. Let me start by telling you that I do not now, nor have I ever worked on classified research. In my former employ, however, I worked in a lab where a large percentage of the research was classified. Many of my closest colleagues worked on both classified and unclassified programs. My employer was Johns Hopkins University; one of our nations most well respected universities, famous for its medical school and for the laboratory in which I worked: the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. The very institution named in the rationale for the draft motion. Many of our nations most well respected universities conduct classified research; either on campus, or in their university affiliated research centers. 51 is in good company when it pursues classified research. Participation in classified research programs can provide benefit to individual researchers and to the universitys non-classified research programs. A good example of a DOD research program that had a good leave-behind benefit was the APEX mission. The APEX mission, supported by the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, consisted of the launch of a shaped-charge that produced a plasma cloud in the upper atmosphere. The 51 portion of the APEX mission was non-classified. In addition to launch support, we were contracted to produce a camera that would capture images of the plasma discharge at a rate of 1000 frames per second. 51 produced the imager and contributed to the study of the physics of the plasma cloud. After the mission, we retained possession of the imager and have used it to study lightening discharges from the tops of large thunderstorms known as sprites. These images have revealed the fascinating structure of sprites and have lead to the discovery of previously unsuspected phenomena. In addition, the imager was used to observe last years Leonids meteor shower and produced images of individual meteors as they ablated in the upper atmosphere; again revealing never before observed phenomena. These images of ablating meteors were featured prominently at a NASA press conference at this years meeting of the American Geophysical Union and will be published in next months edition of Sky and Telescope. Because of the cost of producing the high-speed imager, it would not have been possible under typical research grants. It was only through participation in a DOD program that we were able to build the imager. Not all classified programs relate directly to defense or weapons development. An example of this is some weather observations obtained by Defense Department satellites. In the past, much of the data from the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) was classified. The data were of high quality and were of great value for weather prediction and auroral observations. Over the years, data assimilation techniques have been developed in the university research community that can take advantage of these data. These techniques have greatly improved weather prediction and have contributed to the use of data in other fields. Today, most of the DMSP data are not classified and can be obtained readily by the general public. Not all programs that restrict publication of results are classified. Many agencies have review and release provisions in their contracts. For example, there is a current program on campus to study infrasonics. These are low-frequency sonic waves that propagate for long distances in the atmosphere. The program is funded jointly by the Department of State and the Department of Energy under the provisions of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. The principal investigators on the project are, Dr. John Olson, a recognized expert in signal processing, and Dr. Charles Wilson, a recognized expert in the propagation of infrasonic waves. They are responsible for construction and maintenance of sites to act as part of the operational network of monitors, and are able to carry out research using data obtained from the sites. Participation in the program puts 51 in a position of high visibility. Through participation, 51 contributes toward making our world a safer place. Every contract in this program bears constraint on publications. All publications are subject to review of the sponsor. So far it has been pro forma, but it is entirely possible that the agency could decline to allow publication of results. The implication of the current debate is that there is something wrong with doing research that will benefit national defense. Nothing could be further from the truth. The defense of our nation is a good and honorable cause. Research that contributes to national security is good and honorable. It is entirely consistent of the mission of a university to serve the needs of the public. If the university chose to forbid classified research, or to put in place constraints that made it impossible to pursue, it would severely infringe on the academic freedom of the faculty. Faculty should be free to choose their areas of inquiry so long as they are consistent with the mission of the university, will not endanger the health or safety of the public, and will comply with pertinent regulations. In other words, classified research programs should be subject to the same constraints as any other research program. And, while it may not be possible for all university personnel to have direct knowledge that a specific program does meet these standards, we must place trust in our faculty, Deans, and Directors, who do have direct knowledge, to insure that the standards are met. Now I read from the University code of ethics: Faculty statement of professional ethics: III. As colleagues, professors have obligations that derive from common membership in the community of scholars. Professors do not discriminate against or harass colleagues. They respect and defend the free inquiry of associates. In the exchange of criticism and ideas professors show due respect for the opinions of others. Professors acknowledge academic debt and strive to be objective in their professional judgment of colleagues. Professors accept their share of faculty responsibilities for the governance of their institution. The draft motion before us would place significant constraints on the conduct of classified research. So much so that it would essentially forbid it. This does not constitute respect and defense of the free inquiry of our colleagues. It constitutes an attack on their academic freedom; an attack on our academic freedom. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DRAFT MOTION FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT The 51 Faculty Senate moves to adopt the following interim procedure as a 51 policy governing solicitation and acceptance of proposals and participation of 51 faculty in sponsored agency classified and proprietary research contracts involving university-owned and/or university-operated facilities. This procedure applies as well to the prospectively funded Ballistic Missile Defense Organization proposal from the Geophysical Institute entitled "Arctic Missile Signature Program" (AMSP). EFFECTIVE: Immediately; expires upon promulgation and approval of a Board of Regents regulation on classified research RATIONALE: Board of Regents policy P10.07.02 directs that "All proposed sponsored projects will be reviewed for constraints on disclosure and dissemination of the results of the work" and that "After review of the proposed project and review of the constraints on disclosure and dissemination of the results of the work, the Chancellor or Chancellors designee may approve entering into contractual agreements for classified and proprietary work under governmental and private sponsorship." Given the university's responsibility to act in the public interest and to be responsive to public concerns about classified research in particular, review for constraints on disclosure and dissemination ought properly to include review of constraints on public disclosure during the proposal phase prior to funding as well as adequate public review of environmental impact statements prior to commitment to contract. Public concern and comment about the Geophysical Institute/Poker Flat Research Range funded (but cancelled) project, entitled "Arctic Dispersion (Debris) Experiment" (ADE) undertaken as part of a Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory contract with the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization/U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command, in particular provide urgent cause to have an interim procedure in place. The 51 Faculty Senate Faculty Affairs Committee will continue work on a draft permanent policy/regulation during the course of the semester, which will subsequently be recommended for Board of Regents approval. **** INTERIM PROCEDURE FOR 51 FACULTY PARTICIPATING IN CLASSIFIED AND PROPRIETARY RESEARCH PREAMBLE: The 51, implementing Regents' Policy P10.07.01 on the "Role of Research, Scholarship and Creative Activity", "will foster an environment supportive of conducting research, scholarship and creative activity and broadly disseminating its results in the tradition of academic freedom and its corresponding responsibilities. Publication and dissemination of the results of research projects will be accomplished without excessive or inappropriate prohibitions. Research techniques will not violate established professional ethics pertaining to the rights and welfare of human subjects or the infliction of pain or injury on animals." Further, the 51, implementing Regents' policy P10.07.02 on "Sponsored Projects Submittal and Acceptance," recognizes that "sponsors may operate within a proprietary or classified environment while universities function on the principle of free inquiry and open expression", and, accordingly, requires that any collaborative work with such sponsors "protect the basic tenets of universities." The 51 recognizes that 51 faculty may engage in applied research as well as pure research. However, precisely because universities function on the principle of free inquiry and open expression, with a mission to foster international understanding and mutual cooperation in scientific discovery that benefits humanity at large, the 51 Faculty Senate maintains that the basic tenets of universities are best protected by leaving to weapons laboratories classified applied research involving weapons testing, weapons production, and applied research and development of classified components of weapons or weapons systems, including biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons otherwise designated as "weapons of mass destruction" (WOMD). Accordingly, 51 faculty shall not normally solicit, accept, or participate in such applied research when such research is envisioned to involve the use of university-owned or university-operated facilities. PROCEDURE Definitions Classified research will include any research project entailing classification on the research process or research results, including imposition of restrictions on publication or access. Consistent with definitions of classified research at other research universities in the USA, such research shall be defined as "research that has a security classification established by a federal agency", including those projects assigned designations of "Top Secret", "Secret", and "Confidential" and which do not have the normal disclosure and dissemination of research results enabling peer review by the scientific community at large or by individuals or groups seeking access and acting in the public interest. Proprietary research shall be defined as "industrially sponsored proprietary research for which the sponsor requires a delay in publication in excess of six months". Exclusions Faculty members may perform personal consulting in classified research under the existing rules and regulations of the university and following the normal campus approval procedures. Personal consulting conducted in non-university facilities is excluded from the interim procedure. The interim procedure shall not be construed to abrogate the right of a principal investigator involved in proprietary research to protect his or her inventions or discoveries up to the point of patented or copyrighted publication except as provided for by university policy governing intellectual property. Personal consulting in classified or proprietary research in university-owned and/or university-operated facilities is included in the interim procedure. While classified research shall be included in a faculty members annual workload assignment, classified research results that are not published in the open literature shall not qualify as a portion of faculty research workload normally subject to peer review processes for tenure, promotion, or post-tenure review. Graduate students shall not, except in the rare case approved by the 51 Chancellor with the concurrence of the 51 Provost, participate in classified research. Theses and dissertations that cannot be published or disseminated because of classified or proprietary research will not be accepted in satisfaction of degree requirements. Undergraduate students shall not participate in classified research projects. Use of University Facilities All classified research projects will be conducted at off-campus locations unless the Chancellor, in consultation with and receiving the concurrence of the President of the 51 Faculty Senate, verifies the absolute necessity of on-campus facilities for a proposed classified project. A proposed use of on-campus facilities must receive a two-thirds majority vote affirmative recommendation of the Faculty Committee on Classified Research (see below, section E) prior to the Chancellors review and decision. The Chancellors decision must receive final approval by the President of the University. Security Costs All classified research projects requiring unique security costs shall have security provisions paid by sponsored funds. Faculty Committee on Classified Research The university shall establish a faculty committee on classified research. The committee will be composed of one faculty member from natural science/ mathematics disciplines, one faculty member from the engineering disciplines, two faculty members from social science disciplines, two members from humanities disciplines, and two community members, one of whom shall be a representative of the Board of Commissioners of the Alaska Native Science Commission. The Vice-Provost for Research, the Research Integrity Officer, and the President of the 51 Faculty Senate shall serve as ex officio non-voting members of the committee. An administrative staff person from the office of the Provost shall serve as recording secretary. Committee members will be appointed by the 51 Provost in consultation with the 51 Faculty Senate President for a one-year term, with renewal for one one-year term if necessary pending approval of a permanent university regulation governing classified research. The committee will elect a chairperson from the committee. Acknowledging its responsibility to the public interest to assure research integrity in a classified research project, the university shall maintain its institutional review and oversight authority independent of a sponsoring agency. Accordingly, the Chancellor, and not a sponsoring agency, shall certify each member of the committee and the recording secretary for any and all required security clearances necessary to the performance of its review and oversight of classified and proprietary research projects. The committee will conduct its deliberations and handle all material with the appropriate confidentiality during review of proposals involving classified research components, yet allowing for appropriate public disclosure that does not compromise explicit federal statutes or regulations governing national security or proprietary information as governed by university policy on intellectual property and patent rights. The committee may, at its discretion, consult the University General Counsel in discharging this responsibility and may also consult other sources of information pertinent to its review. Proposal and Project Review Criteria A classified research proposal shall be completed according to normal procedures established by the 51 Office of Sponsored Programs. A classified research project shall provide assurances, during all phases of project proposal and implementation, of compliance with all relevant extant Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) and Institutional Research Board (IRB) protocols. No classified research proposal involving animal care and use or human subjects protections shall be reviewed by the Faculty Committee on Classified Research without completion of the required IACUC and IRB approval process. A classified research project shall provide assurances, during all phases of project proposal and implementation, of compliance with protocols established by the Alaska Native Science Commission, including "Guidelines for Research" as adopted by the Alaska Federation of Natives. A classified research project shall provide assurances, during all phases of project proposal and implementation, of compliance with "Principles for the Conduct of Research in the Arctic" as prepared by the Interagency Social Science Task Force and as recommended by the Polar Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences at the direction of the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee. Individual proposals involving classified research or classified components must be specifically approved by the Chancellor prior to submittal of a formal proposal to a potential sponsoring agency. The Chancellors decision on a proposal shall be issued only after the Faculty Committee on Classified Research has completed its review of the proposal and issued its recommendation. In reviewing a proposal the Faculty Committee on Classified Research shall issue its recommendation within 30 days of receipt of a proposal from the 51 Office of Sponsored Programs. The committees recommendation shall be based on the following relevant factors: intellectual content of the proposed research; relationship between the proposed research and the universitys general commitment to public dissemination of research results; research integrity, i.e., adequacy of assurances of compliance with all relevant research protocol; extraordinary applied research design related to research and development of components of weapons, weapons, or weapons systems; security arrangements, including any restrictions on access to university-owned or university-operated facilities and their effect on the conduct of non-classified research and instruction; resource implications, including proposed recurrent and capital expenditures; and, adequacy of assurances of compliance with applicable federal, state, municipal, and institutional public safety and risk management regulations. The committees recommendation approving a classified research proposal for submittal to a sponsoring agency shall require a two-thirds majority vote of the members present and voting. The committees recommendation disapproving a classified research proposal for submittal to a sponsoring agency shall require a simple majority vote of the members present and voting. Proxy voting shall not be allowed. The committees recommendation, including a narrative statement justifying its decision on the basis of the criteria identified in F.6 above, shall be submitted to the Chancellor. Except in the extraordinary case, the Chancellor shall concur with a recommendation of the Faculty Committee on Classified Research and shall otherwise provide written justification to the committee for a decision contrary to the committees recommendation. The Chancellors decision shall be issued within 20 days of receipt of the committees recommendation. The committee may appeal such a decision in writing to the President of the University, and shall do so within 15 days of receiving the Chancellors decision. The President shall issue a final decision, with written justification, within 20 days of receipt of the relevant documents from the committee. The University shall not formally enter into a contract/agreement for a classified research project prior to completion of the normal process for public review and response to environmental impact statements as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, and federal regulations implementing NEPA . Normal process for public review and response shall be construed to include disclosure of the existence of a proposed contract/agreement, the nature of the research in sufficient detail to permit informed discussion regarding its assurance of compliance with relevant research protocol, the amount of funds to be expended, and the identity of the sponsoring agency or agencies. Board of Regents policy and regulation governing scientific misconduct applies to a classified or proprietary research project. Principal investigators and research associates involved in a classified or proprietary research project shall comply with the applicable institutional, federal, and state provisions governing scientific misconduct and are subject to the established disciplinary procedures in the event of findings of misconduct involving plagiarism, fabrication, or falsification. A copy of progress reports required of or volunteered by a principal investigator of a classified research project for transmittal to a sponsoring agency shall be transmitted simultaneously to the Faculty Committee on Classified Research for review. Projects involving continuation funds with a sponsoring agency shall not require re-approval unless there is a significant change in the purpose or scope of the project or a change in security arrangements. The committee reserves its oversight authority to recommend to the Chancellor the suspension or termination of the universitys involvement in a classified research project that it judges to present public safety or research integrity concerns. The Chancellor shall follow the procedure set forth in F.8 above in the case in which s/he does not concur with the committees recommendation. **** VII Public Comments/Questions - Richard Collins has a lot of concerns about a policy. We need to have a policy that is workable and make it possible for people to do classified research if they so choose. He has a lot of concerns about participation in classified research. Three points he wished to make are as follows: 1) I appreciate the concern of the faculty senate with regards to classified research. Working on research that is not peer reviewed and publishable can serve to isolate the researcher and this can only serve to exacerbate the challenges of Alaska's remote location in the community of science. 2) Classified research yields specific classified results but the expertise and experience is there for the researcher to use in their other endeavors. Classified work as part of a full mix of classified and non-classified work can make a useful contribution to the research expertise of the investigator, and hence the University. 3) The proposed policy has a tone that all classified work is dirty. This is too broad a generalization. Given the broad funding of research by the DoD there are many benign projects funded by the DoD. Undergraduate students who are looking for general research experience (as opposed to graduate students working toward open thesis work) can be gainfully employed as appropriate. VIII Committee Reports A. Curricular Affairs - R. Illingworth A report was attached to the agenda. Open Forums have been scheduled to discuss two new degree programs: Minor in Global Studies and a second bachelor's degree in External Studies. B. Faculty Affairs - P. McRoy A report was attached to the agenda. C. Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee H. Eicken A report was attached to the agenda. D. Core Review - D. Schamel No report was available. E. Curriculum Review - P. Pinney The committee will be looking at two trial course request at their meeting on February 12. F. Developmental Studies - J. Weber The following report was distributed as a handout. Minutes of The Developmental Studies Committee Work Session December 19, 2001, Chancellor's Conference Room Present: Barbara Adams, Patty Baldwin, John Bruder, Rich Carr, John Creed, Cindy Hardy, Marjie Illingworth, Ron Illingworth, Wanda Martin, Greg Owens, Jake Poole, Jane Weber. Maynard Perkins, Debbie Moses. The Committee met in a work session to plan the upcoming assessment of developmental programs. In this session we discussed strategies to get our concerns-particularly the needs for tenure track faculty and office space-before the university community. Suggestions included a resolution before the Faculty Senate, a memo to the Executive Dean, the Chancellor, and the Provost. The assessment we are planning should be a tool to get the information and support we need to address these and other concerns. The remainder of the session we spent in teleconference with Maynard Perkins, who is consulting with us on the direction and process of this assessment. He agreed to go over the questions we have developed and to pose further questions as they arise. Next Committee meeting: January 31, 1-2:30pm. ---------------------------- Minutes of The Developmental Studies Committee January 31, 2002, 1:00-2:30 p.m., Chancellor's Conference Room Present: Barbara Adams, Nancy Ayagarak, John Bruder, John Creed, Cindy Hardy, Marjie Illingworth, Ron Illingworth, Wanda Martin, Joe Mason, Greg Owens, Randy Pfeuffer Jake Poole, Jane Weber. Guests: Maynard Perkins, Bernice Joseph, Executive Dean, CRA. The Committee met and discussed the following items: Assessment of Development Studies Programs: Jake Poole and Bernice Joseph attended the meeting to report on a discussion they had about the process of the assessment. Jake reported that the Chancellor and the Provost both see developmental issues as a university-wide concern. At this point, the CRA dean's office will take the lead on Developmental issues and will work out the mechanics of the assessment: plane tickets, schedules, etc. The assessors will report to he committee and the committee to the Dean, then we will plan together how to present the findings to the chancellor and to implement what we find. Jake suggested that, to expedite getting the work done this semester, we identify someone here to work with the Dean's office on logistics and on writing up the report. We decided that the best time to bring assessors to campus would be after spring break. The committee went through a list of suggested names and narrowed it down to six with the possible addition of a few more names with English as a specialty. The final three-person team will consist of one generalist with national stature who has worked with complete programs, one developmental math, and one developmental English specialist. We will e-mail Jane with the names of those who have shown interest by next Thursday, after which we will send them a letter specifying times and the questions we wish to have addressed. The next meeting will be Thursday, February 21, 1:00-2:30 p.m. G. Faculty Appeals & Oversight - J. Moessner A report was attached to the agenda. H. Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement D. McLean-Nelson A report was attached to the agenda. IX Members' Comments/Questions - none X Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 4:10 p.m. Tapes of this Faculty Senate meeting are in the Governance Office, 312 Signers' Hall if anyone wishes to listen to the complete tapes. Submitted by Sheri Layral, Faculty Senate Secretary. W8 # ZZjiiiiill mmmmmppsstt)vDvqwwwiyxy@zNz ||} ~ªêUŰسwoz>[>g >*5>*OJQJ6 B*ph 5OJQJ5 CJOJQJ;OJQJH(AVW %Jg<Nm] ] (AVW %Jg<Nm ) 8 J \ p  4 Y y # $ [ \ ]  Q  D S )*+]^JKNOYZ567cdQR$$%%''(c ) 8 J \ p  4 Y y # $ [ \ ] ]  ]   Q  D S )*+]^JKNOYYZ567cdQR$$%%''((((())D+E+//1 0^`0((((())D+E+//11/3034477 9 9d:e:<<====>>+>,>@@B BDDD E E:E;EU?UYUZUe11/3034477 9 9d:e:<<====>>+>,>@@B BDDD 0^`0D E E:E;EU?UYUZUXXXXXXXZZZZZ~[[[[h_i_j_ 0]^`0] 0^`0ZUXXXXXXXZZZZZ~[[[[h_i_j_~______bbKdLdeeffii2i3iiijiiiiiijj m mmmmmppsstt(v)vDvwwpwqwwhyiy?z@z | ||}f12 *+[Jj_~______bbKdLdeeffii2i3iiijiiiiiijj m$a$ m mmmmmppsstt(v)vDvwwpwqwwhyiy?z@z | ||}} ~}} ~ &'҂ӂ%&$%-.STʐːZ[=>}zvs      !  bc01+,", ~ &'҂ӂ%&$%- !-.STʐːZ[=>)*noªêج٬$a$$a$)*noªêج٬TUdef~ֳ׳سwxȾnoz{zwqn |/     st 9lm()|} 78 ST *٬TUdef~ֳ׳سwxȾ & F^$^`a$ $a$$a$Ⱦnoz{4eB=>[\ & F ^ & F ^ & F^ & F^ & F^ & F^ & F^ & F^$^`a$ h^h & F^{4eB=>[\=>gh@ u¿zwqnh`XP[  s  T     W         w 7 2  -           ;    =>gh@ u & F^ & F^ & F^ & F^ & F^ & F ^ & F ^ & F ^h^h$^`a$ R7H#,s"#LM¶~vnkheb_\YVSPMJQ&'(u!  d  ,           R      c2      H   E  N    R7H#,s & F ^ & F^ & F^ & F^ & F^ & F^ & F^ & F^ & F^ & F^ & F^ & F^ & F^ & F^s"#LM67_`:;bch^h & F!^67_`:;bcd"#HIyzCD~{xsDEjkl  '()PQP/cd"#HIyzL]LCDab45tu$Dab45tu$%&[lm2p}xsij| !/0WY_`wx[-$%&[lm2p]^` 0]^`0  ^`"hxhxxhxhxxhxhxx.().......P/ =!"#$%8$|HH(FG(HH(d'` i4@4NormalCJOJQJkH'mH <@< Heading 1$@&5OJQJkHB@B Heading 2$$@&a$5OJQJkH'<A@<Default Paragraph Font&)@& Page Numbersp3DDHeadings$da$5CJOJQJkH'J"J Paragraph$hd`ha$CJOJQJkH'RO2Rsenate minutes ] OJQJkH'8Z@B8 Plain TextCJOJQJkH'8B@R8 Body Text$a$ OJQJkH'(U@a( Hyperlink>*B*4>@r4Title$a$5OJQJkH8@8Header  ! OJQJkH'<$= z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z )3 <CKSZcl vM~ |.~7{R T K M\IJ|ld Y1DNTj_ m ~-٬Ⱦsc$(ZU}{DKO ǕQ  , K O`RW$$&R')+,.-0-..e03c4e44o55-6667j@@ACB!CCGGMHMHTT~U~U@]]L^^_`bbccQ& XY:Def-)*ȌɌxyݎގÏďab[\no֕וdeٖؖʗ˗mnƙǙ͚Κ^_:;TU23 VWŢƢ£o48?D Governance<Macintosh HD:Temporary Items:AutoRecovery save of Minutes 10 Governance3Macintosh HD:Meetings 01-02:Meeting 106:Minutes 106 Governance3Macintosh HD:Meetings 01-02:Meeting 106:Minutes 106 Governance3Macintosh HD:Meetings 01-02:Meeting 106:Minutes 106 Governance3Macintosh HD:Meetings 01-02:Meeting 106:Minutes 106 Governance3Macintosh HD:Meetings 01-02:Meeting 106:Minutes 106 Governance3Macintosh HD:Meetings 01-02:Meeting 106:Minutes 106 Governance3Macintosh HD:Meetings 01-02:Meeting 106:Minutes 106 GovernancePMacintosh HD:Desktop Folder:Senate Share:01-02 Senate:fy02 meetings:fsmin106.rtfElizabeth SolanoFMacintosh HD:Desktop Folder:uafgov:faculty:fsfy02meetings:fsmin106.rtf@xhh^h`.@xh^`()@xL^`L.@xh^`.@xhT^T`.@xL^`L.@xhp^p`.@xh ^ `.@x L^ `L.@xhh^h`.@xh^`()@xL^`L.@xh^`.@xhT^T`.@xL^`L.@xhp^p`.@xh ^ `.@x L^ `L.@xhh^h`.@xh^`()@xL^`L.@xh^`.@xhT^T`.@xL^`L.@xhp^p`.@xh ^ `.@x L^ `L.@xhh^h`.@xh^`()@xL^`L.@xh^`.@xhT^T`.@xL^`L.@xhp^p`.@xh ^ `.@x L^ `L.!G K |N Q LU X \ _ b Tf i $m p s \w z ,~   d ̋ 4   l Ԝ <    G`m@xhh^h`.TH!@xh^`()H"@xL^`L.I#@xh^`.\Idi@xhT^T`.Iei@xL^`L. J&@xhp^p`.dJ'@xh ^ `.J(@x L^ `L.dK @xhh^h`.K!@xh^`()L")@xL^`L.lL#@xh^`.L$@xhT^T`.M%)@xL^`L.tM& @xhp^p`.M'pa@xh ^ `.$N( r@x L^ `L.N @xhh^h`.$O@xh^`()|ObD@xL^`L.OJ@xh^`.,Pd@xhT^T`.P @xL^`L.P& @xhp^p`.4Q @xh ^ `.Q(@x L^ `L.4R@xhh^h`.R!@xh^`()R@xL^`L.?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry F1?C1Table[WordDocument=SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjX FMicrosoft Word DocumentNB6WWord.Document.8