For more information, contact




Скачать 111.54 Kb.
НазваниеFor more information, contact
страница1/4
Дата11.11.2012
Размер111.54 Kb.
ТипДокументы
  1   2   3   4
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:

Sheri Layral

312 Signers' Hall

474-7964 FYSENAT


For Audioconferencing: Bridge #: 1-877-751-8040 (Passcode: 512265)

Fairbanks: 474-8050 (Chair's Passcode: 802028)


A G E N D A

UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #106

Monday, February 4, 2002

1:30 p.m. - 4:00 p.m.

Board of Regents' Conference Room

109 Butrovich Building


1:30 I Call to Order – Norm Swazo 5 Min.

A. Roll Call

B. Approval of Minutes to Meeting #105

C. Adoption of Agenda


1:35 II Status of Chancellor's Office Actions 5 Min.

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 Pending:

1. Motion to recommend that the UA Board of Regents'

amend the UA non-discrimination statement.


1:40 III A. Remarks by Chancellor M. Lind 10 Min.

B. Remarks by Provost P. Reichardt 5 Min.

C. Guest Speaker - Ted DeLaca, Vice Provost

for Sponsored Program -

Topic: Classified Research at UAF 10 Min.

(Attachment 106/1)


2:05 IV Governance Reports

A. ASUAF -D. Miller / GSO - 5 Min.

B. Staff Council - S. McCrea 5 Min.

C. President's Report - N. Swazo 5 Min.

D. President-Elect's Comments - G. Chukwu

(Attachment 106/2)

E. Academic Liaison - C. Gold 5 Min.


2:25 V New Business 10 Min.

A. Motion to approve the M.A. degree program in

Applied Linguistics (Attachment 106/3), submitted

by the Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee

B. Motion on Master Plan (Attachment 106/4),

submitted by Faculty Affairs


2:35 ***BREAK*** 10 Min


2:45 VI Discussion Items 10 Min.

A. Joint UAF/UAA Ph.D. Guidelines (Handout)

B. Classified Research 30 Min.

- Discussion Guide (Attachment 106/5)

- President's Comments (Attachment 106/6)

- Draft motion for discussion (Handout)


3:25 VII Public Comments/Questions 10 Min.


3:35 VIII Committee Reports 15 Min.

A. Curricular Affairs - R. Illingworth (Attachment 106/7)

B. Faculty Affairs - P. McRoy (Attachment 106/8)

C. Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee – H. Eicken

(Attachment 106/9)

D. Core Review - D. Schamel

E. Curriculum Review - P. Pinney

F. Developmental Studies - J. Weber

G. Faculty Appeals & Oversight - J. Moessner

(Attachment 106/10)

H. Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement –

D. McLean-Nelson (Attachment 106/11)


3:50 IX Members' Comments/Questions 5 Min.


3:55 X Adjournment


ATTACHMENT 106/1

UAF Faculty Senate #106

February 4, 2002


MEMORANDUM


DATE : 3 February 2001


TO : Paul Reichardt, Provost

Frank Williams, VCAS


FROM : Ted DeLaca, Director, Office of Sponsored Programs


RE : Research university positions on acceptance of classified research within the academic environment


In reference to our earlier discussions, I have undertaken a survey of changes in attitude toward the desirability of accepting government classified research onto academic campuses. My interest in this matter was aroused during a set of presentations (at the last NCURA meeting) regarding the potential impacts of recent changes to modifications and interpretations of the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR). At that meeting, a review of the relevant issues was presented (I have since distributed those materials to Parrish, Neumayr, Akasofu, Smith, and Williams) that discusses the history of changes to the regulations related to the Cox Report and the Los Alamos spying allegations. Two issues should be considered: 1) whether universities and their faculties are appropriate environments for classified or proprietary research; and, 2) with the stiffening of regulations, rigid oversight and interpretations of the ITAR and EAR has it become too risky for universities to be engaged classified research? Through heavily ‘borrowing’ from the presentations of Erica Kropp, Univ. of Maryland College Park and Barbara Yoder, Univ. California, I will make the following arguments about these two related points.


The ‘high road’ taken by the universities represented maintained that; basic and applied research in science and engineering conducted by scientists, engineers, or students at a university normally will be considered fundamental research, and not subject to Export Regulations (EAR). At those universities the resulting information is ordinarily published and shared broadly within the scientific community. Those universities felt that research is not considered fundamental, and is therefore subject to the EAR, if publication of the results is;

i) subject to restrictions imposed by a sponsor,

ii) subject to substantial pre-publication review by a sponsor, or

iii) subject to the sponsor’s withholding results from publication.


These universities have reaffirmed that they will only accept contracts or other awards containing those restrictions after careful pre-submission institutional review. Other language in RRPs, AOs, agency solicitations, and contracts that require significant review include:

  • Restrictions on the participation of non-US entities is required;

  • Access by non-US citizens to the project information is restricted or disallowed;

  • Hiring of non-US persons is restricted or disallowed;

  • Pre-approval rights over research publications is stipulated;

  • Requirements for pre-publication review for matters other than the inclusion of patent and/or propriety sponsor information are stipulated;

  • Sponsors claim resulting research information as proprietary or trade secret; or,

  • If security concerns are addressed.


In short, they have adopted policies stating that classified work may not be conducted on campus. Fundamental to those decisions is that universities and their faculties are not suited for that kind of work in that there are few, if any, ways to control access and dispersal of information on a typical university campus. They likened the introduction of classified information into the campus environment to contagion where, once it is introduced it spreads and morphs in unpredictable ways and results in significant institutional liability.


The University of California has further stated that it will not accept restrictions based upon citizenship status. It educates and discourages its investigators from signing Militarily Critical Technical Data Agreements (DD2345), Air Force Acquisition Clause 5353.227-9000, titled Export-Control Data Restrictions, or DoD requirements for project personnel to complete the Questionnaire for Public Trust Positions. Again, the rationale for this is that they feel protection of the openness and international participation in science is as much a national service and in the national interest as is the conduct of classified research. I do not know what educational efforts or university policies related to our employees signing such statements presently exists for UA but think that there is nothing.


I surveyed 21 universities, quasi-randomly, for their policies related to acceptance of classified research projects on campus and found that 5 universities allowed classified research apparently without restriction; 11 universities allowed classified research under some circumstances; and, 5 universities would not allow classified research to be conducted on their campuses (see the following table). Erica Kropp (U. Maryland) expressed concern that because of increasing awareness of these issues, the web pages that I surveyed may not be up to date.





Open to Classified research

Classified allowed with reservations

Classified research NOT allowed

Models to consider

Arizona State




X
























ITAR*:

As a result of the Cox Report, Congress reiterated the importance of the Missile Technology Control Regimes and stated that “…due to the sensitivity of technologies involved, it is in the national security interests of the United States that United States satellites and related items be subject to the same export controls that apply… to munitions.” That congressional action resulted in the transfer of jurisdiction of the ITAR from the Commerce Department to the Department of State.


The following citations seem relevant:

ITAR 120.1 the purpose of ITAR is to control export/import of defense articles and services;

ITAR 120.3 defines “defense articles” and defense services” as items designed or intended for military use and activities that support that military use and not having a preponderant civilian use, and it points to items listed at ITAR 121.1 (the Munitions List);

ITAR 121.1 (Munitions List – Spacecraft Systems and Associated Equipment), subparagraph a) provides that scientific, research, and experimental satellites are to be deemed Significant Military Equipment only if intended for use by foreign armed services. (SME is a designation that may make anything subject to ITAR 120.7 based on “substantial military utility” or capability)

ITAR 121.1(f)…[last sentence of the first paragraph) "Further, technical data directly related to the manufacture or production of all spacecraft, notwithstanding the nature of the intended end use (e.g., even where the hardware is not SME), is designated SME."


With the transfer of jurisdiction of ITAR to the Department of State has come a great deal of uncertainty regarding the involvement of universities and their faculty in satellite sensors, retrieved data and the research related to data processing, algorithm development, and related issues.


While there is the potential (even encouragement from some industrial collaborators and funding agencies) for involved universities to apply for export licenses to attract contracts or somehow avoid penalties, we were discouraged from doing so. Universities presently enjoy an exemption from some of the policies and regulations of ITAR by virtue the general recognition of their openness policies regarding research and publication of data and information. The general consensus at the NCURA meeting was that universities do not have the wherewithal (policies, staffing, physical plant security….) to avoid the many pitfalls of playing in this arena.


NASA has posted the following note related to fines and penalties related to ITAR and EAR infractions:

  • Export Laws & Regulations are binding

  • Penalties for violations will be assessed to the person responsible and not to NASA

  • International Traffic In Arms (ITAR) penalties

  • Fine of $1 million per violation

  • Imprisonment – 10 years per violation

  • Export Administration penalties (EAR

  • Fine of up to $10K+

  • Imprisonment for up to 10 years


The statement that followed that note: Violations of Export Control Regulations jeopardize NASA’s export privileges, and that new legislation has increased the cost of the fines.


Summary and personal recommendations:

I have personally been involved in classified research since I was a first year graduate student (AEC), and have continued my involvement throughout my research career. I know that it is possible to manage classified research programs on university campuses but it does take a significant commitment on the part of the university to establish and actively maintain such programs (including security administration and oversights). While we could develop a more rigorous program for classified research, UAF needs to undertake a benefit/cost evaluation to consider whether we should do so. These are changing and troubled times for academia (e.g., Los Alamos) and I think it is important to vigorously consider all of our options on these matters. Isolating Poker Flat (and possibly ARSC) as secured facilities is considered to be a possible solution. While that may prove to be a partial solution, those faculty and students will not be restricted to Poker Flat but will also be spending considerable time on the UAF campus. Whether UA does or does not participated in classified research, we should develop a required educational program that provides adequate information on University and federal policies, rules and regulations related to these issues as part of the larger educational program on research compliance.


[*National Security Decision Directive 189 resulted from Executive Order 12356 issued by President Regan in 1989. It was subsequently modified because of the Cox Report and the Los Alamos spying allegations in 1998]


ATTACHMENT 106/2

UAF Faculty Senate #106

February 4, 2002


Godwin A. Chukwu, President-Elect:


There seems to be a communication gap between the faculty and the faculty representatives (the senators) in the UAF faculty senate. It was on the premise of this assumption that the "UAF Senate News" (a monthly newsletter) was launched so as to disseminate brief information to the faculty of senate actions and, or decisions. Senators on the other hand serve as the mouth piece of their respective colleges/schools and whose main duties in their capacity include providing faculty awareness on pertinent issues relating to faculty professional and career well-being, quality and enhancement of the academic programs.


Senators should take advantage of their college/school meetings to periodically brief the faculty on details of senate actions and deliberations. Department Chairs' monthly meetings should serve as another excellent forum for "senators' briefs" and it is from this level that respective faculty can be frequently made aware of senate deliberations and actions. Faculty should be well informed of several senate committees through which important faculty, student and academic issues can be channeled to the senate for deliberations


As we draw close towards the end of the 2001/2002 academic year, it is time to elect and fill vacant senate seats in various colleges and schools. Twenty five vacant seats will be filled. Many faculty have not realized the burden and extra responsibilities that are associated with serving in the faculty senate. It is not a "glorified" title or responsibility. It is a commitment to service that affects the everyday activities within the university for the smooth running and continuous improvement of the academic programs' qualities.


I am calling on all faculty to strive to elect senate representatives whom they consider to be able to meet the demands of the responsibilities and commitment to serve.


ATTACHMENT 106/3

UAF Faculty Senate #106

February 4, 2002

SUBMITTED BY GRADUATE ACADEMIC & ADVISORY COMMITTEE


MOTION:

======


The UAF 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 UAF 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.


  1   2   3   4

Похожие:

For more information, contact iconThermal Spray Membrane Contact Material, Contact Member and Contact Part, and Apparatuses to Which They Are Applied

For more information, contact icon2. Contact information

For more information, contact iconFor more information, contact

For more information, contact iconFor more information, contact

For more information, contact iconFor more information, contact

For more information, contact iconContact Information

For more information, contact iconContact Information

For more information, contact iconInstructor Contact Information

For more information, contact iconInstructor's Contact Information

For more information, contact iconPre-Calculus Course Syllabus Mr. Simoncelli Contact Information

Разместите кнопку на своём сайте:
Библиотека


База данных защищена авторским правом ©lib.znate.ru 2014
обратиться к администрации
Библиотека
Главная страница