agenda - university of alaska anchorage · pdf filesuzanne browner patrick sullivan robert...

UAA Assembly

Agenda September 8, 2011

1:00 - 3:30 p.m. ADM 204

Access Number: 1-800-893-8850 Meeting Number: 7730925

I. Call to Order

II. Introduction of Members President – Megan Carlson Vice President – Debbie Narang APT Classified Faculty USUAA Alumni Association Melodee Monson Craig Mead Nalinaksha

Bhattacharyya Ryan Bucholdt James R. Hemsath

(ex-officio) Suzanne Browner Patrick Sullivan Robert Boeckmann Amie Stanley Julia Martinez Sarah Pace Dave Fitzgerald Russell Pressley Kathy Smith Erik Hirschmann Jessica Dyrdahl Lisa Thomsen Deborah Narang

P= Present E= Excused

III. Approval of Agenda (pg. 1)

IV. Approval of Summary (pg. 2-4)

V. President’s Report (pg. 5)

VI. Administrative Reports A. Chancellor Case

FAQ http://www.uaa.alaska.edu/chancellor/

B. Provost & Executive Vice Chancellor Driscoll

C. Vice Chancellor of Administrative Services Spindle

D. Vice Chancellor of Advancement Olson (pg. 6-9)

E. Vice Chancellor for Student Services Schultz

VII. Governance Reports A. System Governance Council – No recent meeting B. Staff Alliance C. Classified Council D. APT Council E. Union of Students/ Coalition of Students

F. Alumni Association - James R. Hemsath G. Faculty Senate/ Faculty Alliance (pg. 10-61)

VIII. Old Business IX. New Business

A. Election of Assembly President B. Election of System Governance Council – if needed C. UA President, Pat Gamble 1:30

45 Minutes for Presentation 45 Minutes for Q & A

X. Information/Attachments A. Upcoming Governance Events (recurring item)

XI. Adjourn

1

UAA Assembly

Summary Thursday, May 5, 2011

1:00 - 3:30 p.m. ADM 204

Access Number: 1-800-893-8850 Meeting Number: 7730925

I. Call to Order

II. Introduction of Members President – Debbie Narang Vice President – Megan Carlson APT Classified Faculty USUAA Alumni Association x Suzanne Browner Gary Foster x John Petraitis Miles Brookes James R. Hemsath

(ex-officio) x Brian Brubaker x Craig Mead Nalinaksha

Bhattacharyya Karl Wing

Julia Martinez e Audrey Jo Malone Tom Dalrymple Amie Stanley x Russell Pressley x Kathy Smith Susan Modlin x Ryan Bucholdt x Vince Yelmene Gianna Ridgeway Gloria Tomich

P= Present E= Excused New members President – Vice President – APT Classified Faculty USUAA Alumni Association x Melodee Monson x Craig Mead Nalinaksha

Bhattacharyya x Ryan Bucholdt James R. Hemsath

(ex-officio) x Suzanne Browner x Megan Carlson Robert Boeckmann Amie Stanley Julia Martinez x Sarah Pace Dave Fitzgerald

x Russell Pressley x Kathy Smith x Erik Hirschmann x Lisa Thomsen x Deborah Narang

P= Present E= Excused

III. Approval of Agenda (pg. 1-2) Approved

IV. Approval of Summary (pg. 3-7) Approved

V. President’s Report (pg. 8) Introducing council members Scheduled to meet President Gamble on May 14th Talked to Rich Whitney about investigating the Faculty Senate election list serves

VI. Administrative Reports A. Chancellor Case

FAQ http://www.uaa.alaska.edu/chancellor/ Thanks to everyone for Commencement (2270 total graduates) Escorted Lisa Murkowski through the science building Lemonade day – entrepreneur training – over 100 lemonade stands We are rated in the top 5% overall in Athletics Safety awareness among faculty, staff, and families

B. Provost Driscoll Will be at Mat-Su commencement Friday evening Transitions in key positions around the university

COE interim dean CAS dean – appointing head of search committee Research committee has 3 candidates coming to campus BOR – how we move ahead with the joint phd program – get it passed along with our accreditation status (candidacy status)

College of Health, School of Allied Health, School of Medical Education status of leadership program in COE – multiple steps involved

Thank you for another great year 2

University Assembly Summary

C. Vice Chancellor of Administrative Services Spindle

Joan Gunnarson is present for Vice Chancellor Governor in his initial request did not put forth a lot for the university Received funding for the HSB operating cost ISB funding Honors college – faculty position ($100,000 one time only) PBAC put a recommendation to the Chancellor’s cabinet for funding Wages and benefits will have to cover ten percent

D. Vice Chancellor of Advancement Olson (pg. 9-10) 84% over our fundraising total from last year 3 million dollar gift Phoneathon program finished with $152,000 Gary Adams retired after 26 years Faculty staff campaign is under way – chancellor fund will match new and upgraded gifts Retiree luncheon will be May 20th

E. Vice Chancellor for Student Services Schultz (pg. 11-12) Unable to attend

VII. Governance Reports A. System Governance Council B. Staff Alliance (pg. 13)

Discussion on employee tuition waiver

C. Classified Council (pg. 13) Elected new officers Finalized the changes to their by-laws Tuition waiver benefit discussion – passed a motion about staff involvement in decision

D. APT Council Elected new members Tuition waiver discussion – passed the same resolution as Classified Council Discussion about APT Council to new members

i. Letter from President Gamble (pg. 14-17) APT Council was the only one he responded to

E. Union of Students/ Coalition of Students

Week of the 16th first summer meeting June 4th and 5th coalition in Fairbanks

F. Alumni Association - James R. Hemsath G. Faculty Senate/ Faculty Alliance

Robert Boeckmann is first vice president Accept an academic assessment handbook at May 6th meeting Motion for community campus by-laws at May meeting Changes to online course evaluations – may meeting Blackboard will be made available to students for all courses regardless if the teacher uses it or not

VIII. Old Business A. Constitution and Bylaws (pg. 18)

Last meeting was first reading of changing election time back to may instead of September 2nd John Petraitis Approved

IX. New Business

A. Rich Whitney- Active Directory

3

University Assembly Summary

Unified Directory project Schedule for updating elive and blackboard Updating first weekend in June – fixes audio and addresses the load balancing – elive version 10 Blackboard upgrade is a little over 6 months out – December holidays – Implement for spring 2012 semester Unified Directory project is looking for volunteer departments (posted in green and gold) Permits users to connect with applications (ex: when you log into blackboard you are using a user name and password and it looks into the directory to see if you are authorized to access that directory) – Built a single directory that spans all of UA’s campuses – single identity environment (UA username)- Banner system is not a participant in the unified directory yet Delays- building automation to do the migration quickly Retrieving messages from each mailbox and depositing them in the correct location Searching staff or faculty computers must be approved by university council in the form of HR investigation Ability to provide support and patching and software updates Not their intention to lock out a user to their computer

B. Michelle Rizk- Budget (2:00) Talked about capital and operating budget Sports arena – University received 15 million for the project last year, 60 million this year 3500 to 5500 seats depends on additional funding Needs based aid – students will be eligible starting in the fall Will provide alternative methods of ways in which faculty and staff can be useful

C. Election of Assembly President and Vice President Nomination: Megan Carlson President: Megan Carlson

D. Recognition of members Nomination: Deborah Narang Vice President: Deborah Narang

X. Information/Attachments A. Upcoming Governance Events (recurring item)

XI. Adjourn

4

Members of the University Assembly, It is with mixed feelings that I share with you that I have decided to step down from my role in governance. I am beginning a new position with responsibility for leading the institution's accreditation efforts, and I want to make sure I have time to devote to this work. The timing is fortunate because it will allow the Assembly to elect a new leader at the start of the academic year. As a result of discussion with the Governance Leaders, I plan to continue serving as Assembly President until the September 8th meeting to help facilitate the election of the new president and ensure this first meeting runs smoothly. The role of Assembly President is a great opportunity I hope each of you will consider taking on. The next President will have plenty of expertise to rely on, since Debbie Narang will continue as the Assembly Vice President. If you have any questions about the responsibilities associated with this position, please don’t hesitate to ask. I cannot thank you enough for the experiences I have had working in governance with each of you. Serving on the University Assembly has been a tremendous gift, and I have often said that it’s the best committee in the whole university. I hope you will help me reach out to your constituents as we embark on the next accreditation cycle, and that you will remember that I am just a phone call or an email away if you need anything. Warmly, Megan

5

UNIVERSITY ADVANCEMENT ASSEMBLY REPORT – SEPTEMBER 2011 Alumni Relations

The Green and Gold Gala is scheduled for Saturday, October 1, 2011 at the Hotel Captain Cook.

o Table and ticket sales are available now. You can contact Advancement, Betty Hernandez at 786‐1733 or RSVP your needs at http://greenandgold.uaa.alaska.edu/gala/

o The Gala ceremonially kicks off Homecoming 2011 ‐ ‐ an ‘all‐University’, ‘all‐community’ celebration.

o We encourage university alums, faculty and staff to attend. All proceeds support the UAA Alumni Scholarship fund. Because of the success of last year’s Gala, the Alumni Association was able to award 18 scholarships to UAA students.

Gala invites in print are available. You can contact Betty Hernandez at 786‐1733.

The Gala will also recognize the three new 2011 Alumni of Distinction awardees. Read about these distinguished community members at http://greenandgold.uaa.alaska.edu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7798:UAA‐Alumni‐Association‐announces‐2011‐Alumni‐of‐Distinction‐award‐recipients&Itemid=66

Annual Giving The busy fall is upon us and so is activity to encourage and invite constituent audiences to support UAA with a charitable gift. Activity this fall includes:

Fall phonathon ‐ The Office of Annual Giving is gearing up to hire more than a dozen UAA students to be call ambassadors, who reach out to thousands of UAA alumni to connect and give the opportunity to support the University. Last year nearly 2,000 alumni made a charitable gift to UAA and this year we aim to meet or exceed that goal.

Alumni who choose to make their first charitable gift to UAA this fall could have the gift doubled! A generous UAA alum has challenged other alumni to make a gift to the new UAA Bookstore Scholarship (administered by the UA Foundation). Dollar for dollar, a new gift to UAA by an alumnus will be matched, thus doubling the impact of their gift and helping UAA students with the high cost of books.

A campaign to connect with UAA alumni will continue this fall as we utilize email to reach out to engage alumni who live in Alaska, the Lower 48 and beyond. Last year’s successful ‘Update your Contact Information’ campaign will be renewed and conducted this fall. As a result of the campaign last year, thousands of UAA alumni re‐connected with their alma mater, updated their contact information so the University can stay in touch and shared with us stories on why they appreciate and value their degrees from UAA.

Faculty Staff Giving ‐ ‐ Last year’s main campus campaign achieved a 14% participation rate in giving to UAA. The Mat‐Su College recently shared they achieved an 18% participation rate and KPC tops us all with 43% participation! All employee donors to UAA are invited to the annual appreciation coffee morning. This year “Coffee with Tom” is on Thursday, September 15, 7:30 am, ADM 204.

6

Are you a leadership donor and member of the College of Fellows? There are many benefits of becoming a leadership donor to UAA and plans are underway to invite College of Fellows members to exclusive events this fall. Giving is easy, especially through payroll deduction. Don’t miss your chance to care for UAA through your leadership giving. Contact Julia Martinez, 786‐1278 for information. (Individual donors who give annually at the $1,000 or more join the leadership giving society at UAA)

Development UAA raised more than $10M during FY11 in private support from individuals, foundations and corporations, surpassing a goal of $9.3M. The FY11 results are 69% higher than funds raised the previous year. As important as the overall dollars raised, is the increase in gifts from individuals. The total amount contributed by friends of UAA (individuals who are not alumni) increased by a whopping 260% due to a special one‐time gift. Following are some of the hallmarks that help account for this success:

This fiscal year, we’ve seen a 11% increase in the number of donors to UAA UAA saw the numbers of dollars raised through our student‐run Phonathon program

increase by almost 23% this year. The student callers raised a total of $152,890 in gifts and pledges – a record high. Over the last three fiscal years, the Phonathon program has increased dollars raised by more than 55% and the number of alumni donors by over 68%.

This year saw more than $500,000 raised for student scholarships. 470 awards were made to 339 students – these are students who may not have otherwise been able to attend UAA. Twenty‐one new scholarships were created. In five years, there have been 6,810 separate gifts to scholarships; 2,310 of those gifts to scholarships were made by alumni.

This past year, gifts to UAA came from donors contributing from $5.00 to $3 million to provide scholarships and enhanced learning opportunities at UAA. Some examples of major gifts include:

$3M from Dean and Ana Weidner to create a Chair in Business Management

$2M from Providence Hospital for a five‐year commitment to the Nursing program

$200K contributed by Chugach Alaska Native Corp. for the Alaska Native Business and Public Policy initiative at CBPP

$200K from The Eyak Corporation for a suite of student success programs at UAA and the Prince William Sound Community College

$100K to the Honors College to mentor undergraduate research students

$100K as an estate gift to the Elizabeth Tower Canadian Studies Endowment to strengthen education and research on circumpolar issues, U.S./Canadian relations, and comparative studies

$50K endowment created by an individual for Psychology and Education students

$25K endowment created by an individual to support Geomatics scholarships

$25K endowment created by the former director of the Mat‐Su Community College in support of Mat‐Su students

7

The University Advancement has hit the ground running this fall, working on a number of upcoming events, where we can all help celebrate successes at UAA: 9/9 – Arena Celebration and Athlete Meet and Greet 9/10 – WWAMI 40th Anniversary Celebration 9/19 – ISER 50th Anniversary Celebration 10/7 – Health Sciences Building Grand Opening 11/4 – School of Nursing Anniversaries Celebration Everyone is also invited to attend the William A. Egan Day Dinner, October 8th. This year’s speaker will be UAA’s Visiting Distinguished Professor of Business and Public Policy, Willie Hensley, who will talk about Egan and ANCSA. Proceeds from the dinner support UAA's Governor William A. Egan Scholarship for Political Science, History and 49th State Fellows Honors students at UAA. For more info/reservations, contact Ivy Spohnholz at [email protected] Excerpts from Scholarship Thank You Letters: “I will always remember that someone out there cared enough to give and I make a commitment that someday I will follow in your footsteps and pay it forward to another student working to achieve their dreams.”

‐ Laura Cole, Bradford Tuck Senior in Economics Scholarship recipient 2011/2012 “This scholarship will aid me in being more prepared mentally and financially for my future goals. Your generosity inspires me to be a professional that supports education.”

‐ Kelly Tompkins, Alumni Association Scholarship recipient 2011/2012 “As an older non‐traditional student, I am entering nursing school when most people are thinking about retirement and I genuinely appreciated your encouragement represented by this scholarship. Thank you for your generous investment in my future.”

‐ Linda Roe, David B. and Mary E. Carlson Endowed Scholarship recipient 2011/2012 “ Attending college wasn’t something I thought I could do because of my financial situation but because of you I will be the first person in my family attending college.”

‐ Haley Hester, Seawolf Opportunities Scholarship recipient 2011/2012 “ Constantly in today’s society acts of kindness are overlooked and underappreciated but I want you all to know that what you do is noble and does not go unobserved. I appreciated all that you do to donate to this scholarship and that your time, effort and money will not go wasted.”

‐ Michael Horton, Zella Boseman Memorial Scholarship recipient 2011/2012 University Relations

The Fall issue of Accolades, titled UAA Athletics: Our Time Has Come, is currently at the printer and should arrive in mailboxes by mid‐September

“I Am UAA” campaign and individual feature stories have been a great success this past year. We will continue this effort during the 2011‐12 academic year. If you know an

8

exceptional student, faculty member, staff member or alum that should be considered for a feature, please contact Joanne Haines at [email protected]. We have also partnered with the UAA bookstore to sell “I AM UAA” t‐shirts. Both men’s and women’s styles available!

Some fun stats for you from last year’s electronic media efforts in Advancement: o We published 79 "I Am UAA" stories on the Green and Gold website with 58,176

hits o We posted 103 podcasts with 12,028 hits and over 1,246 full‐length listens o We currently engage 717 people via our UAA twitter feed at

www.twitter.com/uaanchorage o We currently engage 202 people (we assume mostly students) via our UAA Free

Food twitter feed at www.twitter.com/uaafreefood o We engage 3,694 people via the UAA Facebook page at

www.facebook.com/pages/UAA‐University‐of‐Alaska‐Anchorage/57576345235 o The UAA YouTube (www.youtube.com/uaanchorage) channel garnered 15,696

views last year o The Green and Gold News website received 133,332 visitors last year

We’ve hired some new folks and reorganized a bit in University Relations. Chris Hargrave has joined the team as an electronic media specialist and will work a great deal on designing HTML emails for campus‐wide and donor events. Joanne Haines fills a new position in Advancement—writer/publications specialist. Joanne will be responsible for major writing projects both in the print and online worlds. Jamie Gonzales also joined the team as a part‐time communications assistant. She’ll be responsible for getting Green and Gold Daily into your inboxes each morning!

UAA is about to undergo its first ever branding effort. During the 2011‐12 academic year we will be conducting in‐depth research in the community, with civic and industry leaders, with the UAA community, with parents of college‐bound students and with local high school students. Stay tuned for more details about this exciting new project for UAA!

# # #

9

September 5, 2011

Report from Faculty Senate PresidentFor University Assembly on September 8, 2011

1. Faculty Retreat was held on August 24, 2011. The theme for this retreat was AcademicIntegrity. John Petraitis and Kimberly Swiantek did the heavy lifting in organizing thisretreat. Claudia Lampman presented the findings of the Ad-Hoc Committee on AcademicIntegrity. Don McCabe was the guest speaker. Susan Kalina & Bruce Schultz presented onInternational and Intercultural Laboratory. My thanks to John, Kimberly, Claudia, Don,Susan, Bruce and members of the Ad-Hoc Committee on Academic Integrity.

2. Met with Terry MacTaggart twice to discuss the strategic planning directions/process. I aman unapologetic fundamentalist and a stickler for methods. I suggested that the first step ina strategic plan is a SWOT Analysis. SWOT stands for Strength, Weakness, Opportunityand Threat. The whole idea is to look at ourselves (Strength and Weakness) and ourenvironment (Opportunities and Threats). This analysis thus gives us a fix on who we areand where we are situated vis a vis our environment. Once we get that firmed up, then wecan deliberate and decide where we want to go. The process is interactive. I got theimpression that Terry MacTaggart is not likely to start with SWOT.

3. Sent our response to Fisher Report to President Gamble. The response that was sent isattached to this report. President Gamble appreciated our efforts. In an e-mail to me hewrote:

Nalinaksha.Good to hear from you. I received the document and at first blush am

impressed with the quality and relevancy of the responses. To be sure, this willcarry weight in the planning process we are about to commence. Thanks to youand those who helped in the effort.

Warm regards, pat

4. Met with Mike McCormick, Assistant Director of Student Activities to discuss FacultyParticipation in Homecoming activities. Requested interested faculty to volunteer forHomecoming Planning meetings.

3211 Providence Drive, Anchorage, AK 99508-4614, USA• Phone: (907) 786–1949 • Fax: (907) 786–4115 • e.mail: [email protected]

10

25. President Gamble addressed the Faculty Senate on September 2nd, 2011. It was followed

by a Q & A session. Highlights are as below:

• The three critical years for students are Senior, Freshman and Sophomore.

• Focus is on higher graduate rate.

• The strategy is to use Accuplacer to assess the readiness of a student. Then use a cadreof Academic Advisors to make sure that the students are going through the Universityin a focussed manner.

• Rationalize programs. Find out which programs have more demand.

• We need better quality data and metrics to measure progress.

• There will be consultation with focus groups. Paula Donson has been hired toimplement this. There will be about 40-50 focus groups.

• The amount of Deferred Maintenance Expenditure is a concern.

Nalinaksha BhattacharyyaFaculty Senate President.


11

June 10, 2011

Patrick K. GamblePresidentUniversity of Alaska

Dear President Gamble,

Subject:Response of the University of Anchorage Faculty to Fisher Report

In February 2011, the Faculty Senate of the University of Alaska Anchorage established acommittee to review the recommendations of the Fisher Report and prepare a response for theSenate. The committee has met several times and also consulted with the UAA faculty in thepreparation of our collective response to the recommendations of the Fisher report. This letter andthe accompanying appendix constitute our response to the Fisher Report.

We understand and appreciate your intention in appointing the Fisher Committee to do an externalinstitutional review. It is the hallmark of every good leader to complement their own knowledgewith the specialized knowledge of others. It is very admirable that you sought out an externalreview to help you in providing leadership to the UA system.

However, we are afraid that the report by Fisher Committee is deficient in several key aspects andwe do not think the report does justice to UAA or to your intentions. The Fisher report suffersfrom the following deficiencies.

• The report does not fully appreciate the demographic trends of Alaska.

• The report makes the assumption that the three MAU’s are “ one University”,when in factthey are separately accredited institutions.

• The report often relies on anecdotal evidence and on single samples for justification, when arepresentative survey of UA stakeholders could lead to a different conclusion.

• The report suggests that in the interest of “efficient usage of resource,”the growth anddevelopment of UAA should be curtailed. Instead we see the University system as afundamental resource in itself.


Page 1 of 5012

As such we reject many of the recommendations of the Fisher report. However there are severalrecommendations with which we agree with the Fisher report. The Fisher Report recommendsdecentralizing UA Statewide administration and shifting more activities to the local MAUs,thereby empowering the MAUs to better serve their constituencies and function more effectively(see pages 53-56, Fisher Report). This has been a supported idea by many for a long time and is astep in the right direction. But this recommendation needs to be implemented carefully inconsultation with the MAUs and not followed blindly. Otherwise, a more problematic structurecould result.

In addition, we agree with the following three recommendations in the Fisher report. The AlaskaScholars program is a good program and should be supported. Professional and employee relateddecisions are best taken in a decentralized manner. The practice of deferred maintenance isinsidious.

We believe that the three MAU’s should be free to grow and develop as they respond to theirdynamic environment. We particularly resent the constant refrain about how UAF must be thedoctoral institution and how there must not be duplication. We consider these to be falsearguments.

Several Fisher Report recommendations hamper the MAUs to serve their constituents and operateefficiently. This is not a statement against MAUs having restrictions, but the deciding factors inthe decision making process should be:

• Industry needs.

• Constituent demand.

• Goals of strategic plans for UA and the MAUs.

• Marketplace factors.

If a business plan for a new bachelor, masters, PhD, or other program at UAA can be shown to beviable, and even profitable, then it should be allowed to be considered by the UA President and notfirst rejected internally by a UA Statewide group with no industry or constituent representation.

The “ten ton gorilla” problem regarding UAA and UAF (p. 7, Fisher Report) is misstated by theFisher Report. Research competition is not between UAA and UAF as assumed by the FisherReport. Research competition is between a single UA campus and outside national universities.The big picture is that UA brings in a relatively small amount of external research funding (about$120M, p. 17-18, Fisher Report) compared to the total available nationally. Each of the major UAcampuses could bring in 5 times more research funding and it would still be a small amountcompared to the national total, but would be an astounding success for the UA campuses andAlaska. In other words, the national funding “fuel” source is free (i.e. already paid for) and is solarge that you should want more engines hooked up to it generating economic power for Alaska.

Statements implying or effectively stating that UAF should be the only sciences and engineeringcampus (p.11, Fisher Report), or obstructing UAA from developing in these areas, are incredibly


UAA Faculty Senate Response to Fisher Report

Page 2 of 5013

baseless broad strokes. These type of statements are in direct conflict with the mission of UA andthe individual campuses that identify research success as part of their mission statements.Furthermore, these type of statements hamstring development of two great areas that a universityhas for obtaining external funding: sciences and engineering. The Fisher Report provides noeconomic analysis or business plan to substantiate its recommendations that appoint programs toa particular MAU. The hampering Fisher Report recommendations are in direct conflict with itsother recommendations calling for more efforts to increase funding for UA.

The Fisher Report extensively describes the importance of increasing alumni fundraising(p.58-66, Fisher Report). However, industry and alumni support will be severely hampered if: 1)the programs alumni want for their children at UAA do not exist, or 2) the research andcollaborative programs that industry wants in Anchorage, where industry has their headquarters,do not exist at UAA. Thus, there is severe conflict among the various recommendations of theFisher Report. Again, a key mistake of the Fisher Report is that it makes recommendationswithout considering the needs of the UA constituents (i.e. the customer) or other marketplacefactors.

Enrollment data has shown for years that UAA serves the Anchorage area best and UAF servesFairbanks. However, both UAA and UAF engineering enrollments are growing which shows thatgrowth at UAA engineering is not harming UAF and may be helping it. The demand forengineering from UA constituencies and marketplace factors support programs at both UAA andUAF campuses.

The key to unlocking the huge potential of UA for obtaining tremendous funding throughresearch and entrepreneurial activities is to allow development of engineering and sciences atUAA in Anchorage. Anchorage is the center of industry and of the medical community forAlaska. Certainly, stifling UAA, which has with the largest and growing engineering enrollment,is not in the best interest of Alaska industry or Alaskans. Continuing the blind appointing ofprograms to MAUs without considering marketplace factors is a recipe for failure. This type ofpast dictating by UA Statewide administration will continue to be a cause for conflict betweencampuses. It is the reason why decentralization of UA Statewide administration and thestrengthening of the individual MAUs are needed. Decisions based on marketplace factors resultin decisions that are reasonable and understandable and thus are more acceptable to the campuses.

The demographic trend of Alaska is such that the Matanuska-Susitna Borough will continue toeclipse the demographic growth in the rest of Alaska.1 In the light of this demographic fact, wedisagree with the Fisher Report that all research facilities must be concentrated in UAF. We wouldargue that given the vast size of the State we need to have dispersed Universities which willdevelop and offer programs to suit their respective dynamic environments.

There is nationwide recognition of the value of a strong menu of PhD programs in urbanuniversities. The urban professional population needs convenient access to good programs thatoffer Masters and PhD degrees. If those programs are not at UAA, professionals will either not

1Source: Alaska Econoomic Trends, December 2010, Volume 30, Number 12. It is downloadable fromhttp://labor.state.ak.us/trends/dec10.pdf.



Page 3 of 5014

http://labor.state.ak.us/trends/dec10.pdf

pursue the degrees or go elsewhere for their education. It is not likely that if an Anchorageprofessional decides to move in order to pursue a PhD then that professional will select Fairbanks.There is a broad menu of West Coast schools actively engaged in marketing to Anchorageprofessions for out of state graduate level education. The lack of a good menu of PhD programs atUAA will, in the long run, reduce the number of the PhD students in Statewide University system.

We would also like to point out that the nature of future employment is going to be knowledgebased. It is worth noting that the three States in the United States of America which are in theblack as far as state finances go are Alaska, Montana and North Dakota (Source: Map in thehardcopy edition of the Time of June 28, 2010). Out of these three states, two are already takingsteps to invest in higher education. A report in the March-April 2010 issue of Academe states :

“An examination of the data for fiscal years 2009 and 2010 shows enormousvariations in state funding and in the use of federal funds. For example, stateappropriations for higher education declined 26.1 percent in Alabama (20.1 percentafter inclusion of federal funds), 19.2 percent in Nevada (4.3 percent after federalfunds), and 16.4 percent in Virginia (9.4 percent after federal funds). At the sametime, appropriations in North Dakota increased 18.5 percent, even though nofederal stimulus funding went to higher education. Appropriations for Montanahigher education increased by 10.8 percent, jumping 30.1 percent with theinclusion of supplemental federal funds. ” (p.10) 2

We therefore reiterate that it is imperative to invest in education now and build up ourcompetitiveness in the knowledge sector. We need to strike the iron when it is hot and at this pointwe have a strategic window of opportunity. Only three states in the country are in good fiscalhealth and Alaska is one of them. The states of North Dakota and Montana have already takensteps to build up their infrastructure for the knowledge based economy. Alaska will be welladvised to follow their example.

We appreciate your request for feedback on the report. The Faculty Senate at the University ofAlaska Anchorage invites you to visit the Anchorage campus often and speak with our faculty,staff and students. We look forward to sharing our dynamic University with you and we lookforward to many discussions with you on the future of UAA.

With best wishes

Nalinaksha BhattacharyyaPresident of Faculty Senate

2Source: 2009-2010 Report on the Economic Status of the Profession, published in Academe , March- April2010 issue and downloadable from http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/comm/rep/Z/ecstatreport09-10/default.htm. Emphasisadded.



Page 4 of 5015

http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/comm/rep/Z/ecstatreport09-10/default.htm

Appendix

Faculty Response to Fisher ReportUniversity of Alaska Anchorage

Introduction

President Gamble, shortly after his appointment as President of the UA system, commissioned areport by James L. Fisher, Ltd. In January 2011, President Gamble released the report to thepublic for comments. Faculty Senate of the University of Alaska Anchorage (henceforth referredby the common acronym UAA), by a resolution in the Senate Meeting held on February 4, 2011,set up an Ad-Hoc Committee to draft recommendations for the faculty senate on the FisherReport.

General Comments

Comments on Methods and Assumptions

1. A major problem of the Fisher Report, is its reliance on a few and at times individualanecdotes to support many of its recommendations. In the social sciences, there is asemi-serious aphorism that ”the singular of data is not anecdote.” That is a way to remindourselves that while meaningful, generalizable data is certainly made up of individual datapoints, each individual point of data is merely an anecdote, and therefore not generalizable.Even when the Fisher Report includes numeric data, it is usually data from a single year.Given the dubious methodology their report in general should be viewed with a high degreeof skepticism. Of course even a broken clock is correct twice a day. So somerecommendations might still be supportable on the basis of common sense.

2. The assumption of “One University” is used in a very simplistic manner. This assumptionof centralized authority and decision making with the President and BOR ignores sharedgovernance and the authority of the chancellor and provost on each campus (as well as thatof faculty) and the fact that the three MAUs are separately accredited.

3. The report does not generally address how changing university programs, demographics,needs, or resources in the state might impact the mission of the campuses, and accepts


Page 5 of 5016

historical assumptions regarding the role of each campus. They frame growth of UAA as azero sum game-it must come at the expense of UAF. They ask “First, how much should theUAA campus be developed in size and programs and to what extent might (should) thisoccur at the expense of UAF? ”(p.7) but fails to ask whether UAA’s development should becurtailed in order to maintain the status quo.

4. The report references the US News college rankings at several points. An underlyingassumption in the Report is that UAF and UAA need to be “highly ranked academicinstitutions in national higher education surveys.” (p. 10) Much recent research andcommentary focuses on the methodology of some of these national studies, particularly theUS News and World Report.3 Using ranking makes sense when talking about marketing,but not when talking about the strength or weakness of academic programs. The FisherCommittee’s reliance on a ranking system that is widely known to be flawed raisesconcerns about the report generally.

Other General Comments

1. As a general rule the authors of this report have a very disturbing habit of drawingconclusions based on a single example. There is a general lack of references/citations.

2. Many times their comments are just off the cuff comments, rather than reasoned arguments.In several recommendations (e.g., #7) the Fisher Committee recommends decentralization,and then in others (e.g.,#8) more centralization is recommended. It is difficult to tellwhether the committee views the optimal organization to be one system with severalcolleges and universities, one system with three universities that each also include a numberof branch campuses, or as one university with several campuses. This particular lack ofclarity makes it very difficult to evaluate a number of the recommendations in the report.

3. They present much material in a manner that did not clarify underlying assumptions, makesuggestions concerning very complex issues that seemed overly simplistic in nature, andpresent numerous questions with out providing much guidance.

4. The report additionally becomes sidetracked by minutiae.

3For example see The Flaw of Overall Rankings By Robert J. Sternberg published in the January 24, 2011 issue ofInside Higher Ed-available online at http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2011/01/24/sternberg.


Page 6 of 5017

http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2011/01/24/sternberg

Comments on Specific Recommendations

Our comments are given in the following table. The table lists the recommendations made by the Fisher Committee and recordsour comment in the corresponding columns. In some cases, we have no comments to make.

RecNo Fisher Committee Recommendation Page Our Comments1 UAA’s current strategic plan, which needs refine-

ment, indicates that the institution will “reinforceand rapidly expand our research mission” and that itwill “build selected research-centered graduate pro-grams.” It is not clear precisely what these statementsmean. They could mask wholesale changes, or in-stead reflect only marginal changes in the current sit-uation. These goals need to be clarified. As a well-placed individual wryly commented, “Sometimes in-stitutions don’t accurately interpret their missions.”In addition, the plan should become more pointed,i.e., timelines, costs, source of funds and accountableofficers, et al.

9 & 10 Periodically refining an institution’s strategic plan is certainly a goodidea. However, the context for the recommendation is troubling.This recommendation follows in part from the claim that Alaska can-not financially afford two doctoral research institutions. That claim,however, is made with no clear evidence to back it up.Also, even if that claim is true, this recommendation gives little to nodirect guidance on how to implement it. UAA needs to develop newgraduate programs and expand existing programs, as many studentscannot or do not want to leave Anchorage. However this recommen-dation seems to be a thinly veiled reference to reducing the researchgoals of UAA, which cannot but adversely impact the developmentof graduate programs.The comparisons that immediately precede this recommendation arenot very appropriate. In the states that are mentioned there are otherexisting research institutions in the urban population centers. Theassumption that UAF should continue to be the “system flagship” isnever examined critically. We don’t see objective analysis to deter-mine the most effective and efficient use of resources allocated tohigher education.


Page 7 of 5018

RecNo Fisher Committee Recommendation Page Our Comments2 We recommend that the UA System: (A) respect the

lessons of specialization in graduate work and re-search and identify a limited number of academic dis-ciplines that will receive special resources and com-mitment, whether at UAF or UAA; (B) continue tofocus UAF on its traditional strengths in the sciencesand engineering; (C) focus advanced graduate workand research at UAA on the social and behavioral sci-ences and education and avoid replicating UAF’s pri-mary areas of expertise; (D) locate any future lawschool - the state does not have one currently - atUAA; and, (E) support and expand WWAMI typeprograms (WWAMI is a collaborative medical schoolamong universities in five northwestern states (Wash-ington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, and Idaho) andthe University of Washington School of Medicine) inexpensive disciplines and courses of study.

11 This is yet another recommendation completely unsupported byanalysis. This recommendation seems to assume that particular pro-grams should only receive resources at one campus. This ignores,though, the geographic distribution of college campuses in Alaska.Note also that this recommendation would have UAA focus on thebehavioral/social sciences and education, but it ignores the liberalarts entirely. This is puzzling, given that the discussion leading upto this recommendation states that UAF has not been putting sub-stantial resources into those fields. (Also, 2B states that UAF hasa traditional strength in the sciences, but the preceding discussionstates that UAF has been unsuccessful at creating high-quality pro-grams in the sciences, except for arctic and climate studies. Thereseems to be some incoherence there.)UAS is oddly missing in this entire discussion, even though onewould expect this recommendation to include that university, aswell.There has been no critical and objective evaluation of the science andengineering programs and areas of expertise to conclude that UAAshould not expand its offerings. We should not be talking about“limited” disciplines unless we know for sure that such programs donot appeal to enough members of the community.Also, if we hope to attract exciting PhD Scientists in some fields,they need to have graduate students to assist in their research, orelse they will not be competitive in grants. So thinking of researchalways in opposition to UAF is not productive.


Page 8 of 5019

RecNo Fisher Committee Recommendation Page Our Comments3 Despite improvements, reality is that large numbers

of students begin studies at the University, but thendisappear. (We note here that the high school dropoutrate is also unusually high.) There may be valid rea-sons why UA lags national standards; if not, then thenumbers we observe reflect a waste both of humanand financial resources. Whichever is the case, theUniversity needs to determine why its performancelags national norms and then, as necessary, outlinehow it intends to improve the situation.

12 Why students begin studies and then disappear is a good ques-tion.We are not sure what “actual data” Fisher et al are suggesting.One would be at a loss to figure out how to collect it besides survey-ing students who have left, and they are not always easy to find.In part we are using the wrong data. 6 year grad rates are based onfirst time, full-time freshmen. However the average student age atUAA is 30, only 35 % are full time. 80% work, many full time.( p.41 of the Fisher Report).There are a wide variety of reasons why students drop out of UAA,e.g. financial, academic, lack of interest. Some students transfer to“outside” universities and obtain degrees there. These students arenot tracked.Certainly, more can and should be done to support students. How-ever, this recommendation assumes (and it is a widespread assump-tion these days) that ensuring college completion for every admittedstudent, or at least the vast majority of them, should be the goal ofevery postsecondary institution. Despite that, though, there is alsosomething to be said for college acting as a sort of “quality control”mechanism. That is, if grades actually are intended to mean some-thing, and if it is expected that it can be possible to fail a course,then one would expect that some students will not make it throughwhat is supposed to be a rigorous experience. This is naturally evenmore the case at an open access university like UAA, where thereare inherently fewer filters on the preparedness of entering students.


Page 9 of 5020

RecNo Fisher Committee Recommendation Page Our Comments4 Elsewhere in this report, we argue that the University

of Alaska might be well advised to focus its scarcedollars on a smaller number of programs, especiallyat the graduate level, many of which can legitimatelyaspire to national rankings. It is not clear to us thatsome of the doctoral programs at UAF would surviveif such criteria were applied. We recommend thatthe President and the Board take a long look at thissituation and reexamine the viability of programs in-cluding enrollment, retention, research productivityand graduation.

13 We question the goal of aspiring to national rankings as a goal as op-posed to “useful to residents and policy in the state of Alaska.” ThePresident and the BOR should study the enrollment and the num-ber of Ph.Ds awarded in the various programs. For example, if lessthan 3 Ph.Ds are awarded in a 10 year time frame, the funding couldprobably be better used in other areas. If a program review is calledfor then it should be done by the Provost of the relevant MAU.


Page 10 of 5021

RecNo Fisher Committee Recommendation Page Our Comments5 This is a difficult and often treacherous milieu. Nev-

ertheless, we recommend that the University as an in-stitution seek to avoid adopting official policy stancesin such controversies, but instead: (A) insist onscholarly integrity and do its very best to avoidshoddy scholarship that will draw legitimate criti-cism; (B) seek to apply the University’s consider-able expertise to the analysis of similar problems;(C) via its faculty, offer prospective solutions, butnot endorse those solutions; and, (D) actively spon-sor discussions of relevant issues and ensure that theUniversity remains a free and open marketplace forideas. On occasion, it may be necessary to defendacademic freedom and free inquiry when interestedparties are not pleased with the results of Universityresearch, or with the expression of particular pointsof view. However, untrammeled scholarly inquiryand research are foundation stones of any respectableacademic community and the University of Alaskashould not equivocate in such situations.

14 & 15 This recommendation seems confused about UA’s “official policy.”It simply needed to say that UA should support academic freedomsregardless of the consequences.


Page 11 of 5022

RecNo Fisher Committee Recommendation Page Our Comments6 Therefore, it is prudent for the University of Alaska

to plan for the possibility that: (A) its general fundsupport from the State of Alaska might not keep upwith price inflation; and, (B) its share of the state’sbudget might decline. The University should explorewhat the University would be like if ten years fromtoday, the “real” (after inflation) value of its state ap-propriation has not risen, or even declined. What ac-tivities must the University improve or discard to op-erate efficiently in such a world? What things mustit begin to do if this will be the state of affairs in2020? What would this imply for tuition and fees?The number of questions that must be answered isalmost endless.

15 This recommendation simply means that the University should planfor the future. A large class of recommendations by Fisher belongto this genre-basically sound but not very profound.


Page 12 of 5023

RecNo Fisher Committee Recommendation Page Our Comments7 Hence, we must recognize that a reorganization of

the University of Alaska is not a cure all for what-ever ails it. Even so, it is apparent that some im-provements can be made. These fall into two maincategories. First, as it stands, the University ofAlaska is overly centralized and devotes too manyresources to a command and control regulator modelthat should instead place more emphasis upon incen-tives, distinctiveness and entrepreneurial activities.Increasingly, under the authority of the President,UA Systems administrators should act as staff tothe Board and provide recommendations rather thanwielding final administrative authority. Second, theUniversity’s attempt to seamlessly integrate all post-secondary education into the same administrativestructure sounds better than it actually works. UA’svocational, technical and community college activ-ities must be accorded greater prominence and notviewed as “four-year lite”(the observation of a some-times frustrated individual associated with workforcedevelopment).

16 UA has become too centralized, and statewide administration hasgrown considerably in recent years. Each MAU is distinct, and “onesize does not fit all”.Since Alaska does not have a community college (except PWS), it isextremely important that vocational, technical, and workforce devel-opment programs be supported as well as baccalaureate and graduateprograms.If we are serious about becoming more efficient, then many of theresources that are currently being used to support the UA adminis-trative structure should be reallocated to other, higher priorities. In-stead of an overarching UA administration, we would like to recom-mend more independence for MAUs and for individual campuses,not less.


Page 13 of 5024

RecNo Fisher Committee Recommendation Page Our Comments8 Our point is not to concentrate all program-reduction

attention on teacher education; instead, why maintainthree free-standing teacher education programs, threefree-standing MBA degrees, three free-standing en-vironmental studies programs, et al? UA often talksabout being “one university” but shrinks from situa-tions where one MAU will supply faculty and coursesto another MAU, or one MAU will perform all of acertain type of administrative task for other MAUs.We believe it is time for the UA System to moveoff the mark on these issues and recommend that thePresident take steps to see that it occurs.

20 No, UA does not talk of being one University.If we have one university and three campus model, then we shouldhave one Provost and one Senate and one Library.Three separate programs are needed. Juneau, Fairbanks and Anchor-age are far apart geographically, and the programs serve the commu-nities in which they are located. We need engineering programs atUAA as well as at UAF, as the population center is in Anchorage.The solution again is for programs to follow students.This statement is contradictory to Recommendation 7 which callsfor de-centralization.

9 The problem with this approach is less the coursesrequired and more the comparative absence of em-pirical evidence that the programs “work.” Have stu-dents learned when they finish these programs andis there a measurable “value added?” Have their at-titudes changed? Do they become more or less tol-erant of the views of others? Are they better ableto integrate and synthesize information? How dothey compare to other students nationally? How dograduates from UAF, UAA and UAS compare, sincethey do not complete the same general/liberal educa-tion sequences? Does the “capstone” course at UAAdesigned to integrate knowledge make a perceptibledifference? These are important questions and westrongly recommend that the University employ rig-orous means to seek their answers.

20 & 21 This is not a recommendation, this is a series of questions. Theycertainly are important questions, but one has to wonder why thiswas numbered as a recommendation when no real suggestions aremade for either how to investigate these questions, or probably moreimportantly, what to do with any answers that are found.Are these questions about programs working particular to the UAsystem or do they plague all universities? We don’t know of anyuniversity basing their programs on this kind of research.We wouldsay that the jury is still out on the methodology and relevance.The question about comparing graduates reveals an incredible sim-plicity of mind when it comes to looking at programs, In the samevein, “Value added” is not a useful measurable term in this context.


Page 14 of 5025

RecNo Fisher Committee Recommendation Page Our Comments10 We recommend that the President refashion the en-

tire institutional research function with the UA Sys-tem. If necessary, different individuals must be hiredwho are capable of performing sophisticated multi-variate analyses and that have mastered applicableoperations research techniques such as linear pro-gramming, queuing and simulations. Most of theheavy lifting in terms of institutional research shouldoccur on the MAU campuses and experts on thesecampuses can be allocated specific tasks as well bythe President. Relatively few central system person-nel will be needed and these should focus on record-ing and classifying data and completing necessary re-ports.

21 There is somewhat of an irony here, in that this recommendationhighlights the importance of sophisticated quantitative statisticalanalysis but precious few of the recommendations in the report arebased even remotely on any sort of quantitative analysis at all.

11 It appears possible for a UAA student to avoid takinga laboratory science. UAF requires two laboratoryscience courses of every baccalaureate student, andUAS requires one course (although the UAS Cata-log does not make this point clear for students). Forseveral reasons, a laboratory science experience is anessential part of a respectable liberal undergraduateeducation. We recommend that UA require such onevery campus.

21-22 A lab science course for the GER is required at UAA. UAA followsthe GER requirements approved by the BOR (Page 61 of the UAAcatalog). According to p. 82 of the current UAA catalog, all bache-lor’s students must take 7 credits of science, including a laboratorycourse. This is easily findable by simply searching for, e.g., theword “laboratory” in the PDF version of the catalog (or, if one usesa paper version, by scanning the headings in the general educationrequirements). Making such a claim in a recommendation leads oneto wonder how in-depth the committee’s research actually was.Also, it seems odd that after stating earlier in the report that the needsof associate’s degree programs and students should not be ignored, atthis point in the report “a UAA student” apparently means preciselya UAA bachelor’s degree student.


Page 15 of 5026

RecNo Fisher Committee Recommendation Page Our Comments12 There is no writing competency exit examination.

Given that high proportions of UA students trans-fer into the campuses where they seek to graduate,and many are mature and hence completed writingcourses many years previous, it is important thatthey demonstrate their ability to write clearly and co-gently. We recommend that UA take steps to imple-ment such an examination. We can guarantee thatcitizens and employers will approve.

22 A generic writing examination will not allow us to assess a student’swriting ability. It is important that our students communicate well,but communication in each discipline is different. It makes a differ-ence whether the sort of writing examination the committee wouldlike to see involves writing for an academic audience, business writ-ing, technical writing, multimodal composition, etc. We are notaware of any university that has a writing competency exit exam-in any event none of us had to face such an exit examination.Our GER, capstones and course standards address writing compe-tency. The time and money required to implement a cumbersomeexit exam could be spent in better ways.

13 We are uncertain what “academic” writing is (F211,F213). Such labels suggest these writing coursessomehow are not aimed at preparing students for ef-fective writing in other situations, e.g., in business,or everyday life. We recommend different titles.

22 These courses are UAF courses. UAA has ENGL courses at the 200level that are geared towards Literature, Technical Writing, Socialand Natural Sciences, and Persuasion.

14 We recommend that UA institute a computer liter-acy requirement for all baccalaureate degree candi-dates. The vast majority of students will come to theUniversity with computer and Internet skills, but willnot necessarily be familiar with certain software pro-grams and/or search techniques. Computer and In-ternet literacy has become a prerequisite for the exer-cise of intelligent and full citizenship and UA shouldensure that its graduates have demonstrated such lit-eracy. We note that computer/Internet literacy andlibrary literacy are not identical.

22 This is another cut and paste from previous Fisher reports. We pro-vide many regular and short term courses for computer skills. Al-though faculty appreciate the role of assessment, we wonder if thesizeable costs of assessing computer literacy of every graduate issufficiently justified in an era when success in college today man-dates that students are reasonably facile with computers for doingtheir research, writing their papers, and submitting their works.


Page 16 of 5027

RecNo Fisher Committee Recommendation Page Our Comments15 We recommend that every baccalaureate degree re-

cipient be required to demonstrate competency in anon-English language or culture. UA students willgraduate into a world that is increasingly interna-tional. The first language of more than one-quarterof all new elementary school students in Californiais Spanish. In Alaska, approximately fifteen percentof the population speaks a language other than En-glish at the dinner table. Further, language is therepository of a culture; it is essential that UA stu-dents come to grips with other cultures, preferablyby means of their languages. Both the understandingof UA students and their employability will increaseif they acquire facility with a non-English languageat the second-year collegiate level. We recommendthat UA introduce such a requirement.

22-23 This has also been discussed in the past, and is currently under dis-cussion by a UAA Faculty Senate committee. If UA were to intro-duce such a requirement through the BOR, the budget implicationson the various campuses would have to be considered. Fisher’s rec-ommendation on this issue would have been more credible if it hadreported the extensive and unique cultural and language research andresources in Alaska and at UAA. We welcome recognition and sup-port. This is one area in which UA is an international leader. Theextended campuses play a crucial role in these programs. KPC isproud to host the Dena’ina research and language teaching programthat began with original research here in 1989. Note also that theDena’ina language website is cutting-edge in language instruction.Native languages and Native ways of knowing are important area ofresearch and their results implements throughout Alaska. Also thejoint UAF-UAA psychology PhD program is the only rural indige-nous psychology program in the country.


Page 17 of 5028

RecNo Fisher Committee Recommendation Page Our Comments16 UAS’s general/liberal education program appears to

be substantially smaller in requirements than UAF.The differences between the three campuses are largeenough that it is not clear that one could justifiablysay the programs are interchangeable. This is oddgiven the ”one university” slogan that UA frequentlypromotes. Since UA doesn’t have rigorous empir-ical evidence available that speaks to what actuallyworks and does not work in its general/liberal educa-tion programs, it is impossible to say whether thesedifferences are helpful or harmful for students. Werecommend that UA examine the differences in pro-grams and rigorously determine if they do make adifference in the System’s ultimate product, its grad-uates. To ignore the differences in the programs isto suggest that it really doesn’t make any differencewhat courses students take. One university shouldhave one set of general education requirements.

23 UAA, UAS and UAA all follow the BOR GER requirements, buteach MAU can add their own requirements. There is an agreementthat GER requirements transfer between the MAUs.Since UAA, UAS and UAF are separately accredited, why do theGER requirements have to be exactly the same at the three MAUs? Ifone examines other states, e.g. Washington, the various universitiesdo not have the same GERs. At some universities, each college hasits own GER requirements.

17 We recommend that the State of Alaska make tar-geted investments in these areas, as they bode notonly address the specific needs of Alaska, but also toattract considerable outside funding. It is plausiblefor the State to make such investments on an incre-mental, show us what you can do basis.

24 The report identifies “some promising avenues” for future research,and then recommends targeted investments in these area. Have theyconducted a rigorous needs assessment and prioritized these areasfor UA? This seems to be presumptuous. This recommendationwould get the legislature involved in micromanaging UA.


Page 18 of 5029

RecNo Fisher Committee Recommendation Page Our Comments18 Incentives count where research is concerned and we

recommend that the University reexamine how it uti-lizes and distributes the indirect cost overhead re-covery funds that accompany many grants that it re-ceives. We don’t have a formula to offer that magi-cally and optimally distributes these funds amongstresearchers, departments, colleges and the Univer-sity. Nevertheless, the comments of some facultysuggest that increasing the distribution of funds tothe actual researchers who generated the funds mightinduce more grant activity over time. These fundsalso could be used to nudge institutions (e.g., UAA)in programmatic and research directions consistentwith the UA System’s overall strategic plan.

24 It is difficult to tell what this recommendation means. If it meansthat a UA level committee will decide what line of research is ap-propriate for an individual faculty member to follow, we oppose it.If, however, it means that more grant funding is fed back to grant-funded research, we support it.


Page 19 of 5030

RecNo Fisher Committee Recommendation Page Our Comments19 We recommend that the Board of Regents study ex-

tending the WWAMI model to other academic ar-eas, especially high cost, low enrollment programswithin particular academic specialties or professionalschools. “Buying” spots in reputable graduate pro-grams in others state might save Alaska the expenseof operating and equipping small, high-cost graduatetraining. Veterinary medicine, dentistry, architectureand law could be candidates for WWAMI-like pro-grams, but only if documentable shortages exist thathave inflated wage rates. It would make little senseto initiate a WWAMI-like program if Alaska alreadyis able to obtain the individuals it reasonably needsin a particular occupation or specialty.

25 This could be a slippery slope and cause the University to de-velop a “support” oriented faculty per WWAMI-like program. AUniversity should have the capabilities to graduate students with-out sending them to another program. Are we Universities or arewe support institutions? This is doing education on the cheap anddirty. The University of Alaska must grow its own professionals.The remark “[unless] able to obtain the individuals [from outsideAlaska]” referring to health care providers, veterinarians, dentists,lawyers, architects, shows lack of understanding of Alaska by theFisher group. The following statement from the 2010 report onhealth care providers in Cordova ( http://www.cityofcordova.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/1.pdf ) reflects the situation concerning in-dividuals obtained from outside: “They do not intend to stay longterm, and they cycle through. They do not get involved in the com-munity and they do not spend money and support the local economy.It is almost like the mindset of health care providers is that medicalstints in Cordova are meant to be temporary.”


Page 20 of 5031

RecNo Fisher Committee Recommendation Page Our Comments20 We recommend that UA explore the possibility of

sharing distance learning courses with institutionsin other states and that it give additional consid-eration to how it might economize by sharing re-sources with the Western Governor’s University(WGU). WGU offers NCATE-accredited teacher ed-ucation programs, CCNE-accredited nursing pro-grams through the master’s degree, and a raft of busi-ness programs through the MBA, all via distancelearning. The University of Alaska should not ca-sually cast these programs or their courses aside.

27 At several points the committee raises differences between coursesand requirements at UAA, UAF, and UAS as a problem. Withthis recommendation, however, they suggest introducing yet anotherinstitution with different courses and requirements into the mix.Would such differences suddenly become non-problematic if WGUwere involved? It is unclear why the committee makes multiple ref-erences to the usefulness of WGU without explaining this apparentcontradiction. The suggestion to out-source academic programs toWGU is an insult to Alaska.WGU is an on-line college with a 47:1 student to faculty ra-tio. Even with this unacceptable ratio, the names and creden-tials of its “faculty” are not published. A March 2009 reportfor teacher education accreditation http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/coa-agendas/2009-05/2009-05-item-19.pdf states only that “in-terviews and review of vitae indicate that mentors, coordinators, andadministrators are qualified for their roles. They hold appropriatedegrees for their work and most have previous experience in schoolsettings.(page 10)” As for its curriculum, the same report states that“WGU does not have traditional courses, but instead has a seriesof domains, sub-domains, competencies and objectives. Many ofthe sub-domains (courses) were selected by lead (national) educa-tion faculty members from a catalogue of existing, internet-deliveredself-contained packages to form the base of the teacher preparationprogram sequence.(page 14)”.This process is described in harsher detail in the reviewhttp://www.justcolleges.com/online-college-reviews/western-governors-university-review.htm?review=147. While one mightquestion this review, there is nothing on WGU website to counter it.The accreditation, of which it boasts, was not granted without con-troversy. The Academic Senate of California Community Collegessuggested political and monetary forces behind WGU accreditation,citing mainly lack of faculty: http://www.asccc.org/node/176638.


Page 21 of 5032

RecNo Fisher Committee Recommendation Page Our Comments

The US Department of Education liststhe following data for WGU on website(http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/?q=wgu&s=all&id=433387#general)

• Retention rate for first time students: 70%

• Overall graduation and transfer-out rates: 22% (this is for finishingwithin 150% of normal time)

• Graduation rates for Bachelor Degrees: 4 years: 20-26%, 8 years:32%

While an outside institution may supply course work, they cannot replacelocal faculty who understand the area where students plan to work andmake their homes. We do this by providing faculty and facilities that ad-dress labor and professional needs in Alaska Such objectives can not bemet by a remote college. Developing a professional in any field requiresmore than passing a few distance classes.. Distance education does haverole in education but UA faculty are better providers of these courses thanan on-line institution outside of Alaska.

21 Many UAF classrooms do not contain the basic smartclassroom essentials—a PC, Internet access, a pro-jector and a large screen. Smart boards are somewhatunusual. We believe that special assessments in theform of increasing the student per credit technologyfee should be considered to begin to remedy this sit-uation.

27-28 Same applies to UAA.


Page 22 of 5033

RecNo Fisher Committee Recommendation Page Our Comments22 A system-wide harmonious student records system

is an example of where a statewide approach makessense. We recommend that the President examinewhy this particular version meets with so much criti-cism. Do any legitimate problems that exist reside inthe software, how it is managed, how it is used, lackof training, or ...?

28

23 It would take effort for one not to be impressed bythe University of Alaska’s massive use of technol-ogy. We recommend, however, that both the Systemand individual campuses spend more time evaluat-ing what they are doing with that technology. Strongemphasis should be placed on generating rigorousempirical evidence concerning the University’s useof technology and its effect upon learning and sub-sequent student outcomes such as retention, gradua-tion, and job placement. The questions noted abovemight serve as a starting point. It is apparent that theUniversity of Alaska already has done some of theanalysis called for here; it simply hasn’t done enoughto justify what now is approaching a $100 million peryear expenditure.

30 We very much doubt that anyone has a demonstrated methodol-ogy to find “rigorous empirical evidence concerning the Univer-sity’s use of technology and its effect upon learning and subse-quent student outcomes such as retention, graduation, and job place-ment.” Educational researchers worldwide are looking at the im-pact of technology on education-to suggest that UA solve this is-sue is not realistic, except for perhaps specific UA applications oftechnology. It is very easy to ask superficially profound questionswhen you have no clue about the methodology to find the answers.Also other uses of technology( as for example the ability of increas-ing student access through technology) are ignored.


Page 23 of 5034

RecNo Fisher Committee Recommendation Page Our Comments24 Some of the funding for UA’s technology efforts is

supported by a $5.00 per credit hour student fee(maximum = $60 per semester). We believe there isa strong argument for increasing the size of this userfee, provided the proceeds are used directly to sup-port and assist students. Additional “smart” class-rooms (noted above) provide such an example, aswould additional work stations. We also recommend,however, that UA administrators utilize student advi-sory committees to assist them in ascertaining howthings are working and what things need to be done.

30 At UAA, the Consortium library provides 35 research stations forstudents. It is debatable whether more are needed, as most studentsbring their own notebook computers/tablets/IPads /cell phones tocampus. Maybe fewer computer labs are needed except when spe-cialized software is needed. Before making such a decision, though,one presumably ought to determine whether the technology invest-ments funded by such fees would actually be worth it. An example:one of us have taught at a university where every classroom haddigital projectors funded by student technology fees imposed sev-eral years ago, but they were effectively unusable because they wereearly-generation projectors with a low resolution, and it was deemedtoo expensive to replace them even given the existing fee structure.We need to avoid trying to build a revenue stream that we then useto create that sort of problem for ourselves.

25 Finally, while UA’s technology intensive distancelearning efforts are much appreciated by students, itis fair to note that some knowledgeable outsiders be-lieve that UA is not at the forefront of distance edu-cation today. “There are some outdated in their ap-proaches and high cost in their operations.” said one,who believes the President should bring in one ormore acknowledged experts at institutions that eitherare on the cusp of new developments, or which cur-rently operate highly successful, profitable programs.We concur.

30 Since Fisher Group did not visit KPC nor assess KPC’s distance ed-ucation practices and technology, it is hard to see how they can judgeUA’s distance programs to be outdated. Also why are the “knowl-edgeable outsiders” kept anonymous?This recommendation does not give credit to CAFE and the peoplein educational technology who run great workshops and assist fac-ulty. Before bringing in institutional experts, we should support theprograms and people we already have in place to do these things.We would also like to point out that the nursing program at UAAdoes use a large number of online courses.


Page 24 of 5035

RecNo Fisher Committee Recommendation Page Our Comments26 In any case, a partial solution to the tension on this is-

sue is to have the Board of Regents adopt refined, dis-tinct institutional mission statements—a step we rec-ommend. We note that as a doctoral, research institu-tion, UAF must be accorded distinctive treatment, orit will fail. However, it is obvious that the majority ofthe state’s population and resources are located in theAnchorage metropolitan area. Hence, the real ques-tions are: (1) how many doctoral programs should besupported at UAF? and, (2) over time, should somefree-standing, distinctive doctoral programs be devel-oped at UAA along with a variety of other graduateand research offerings?

32 And the question that is not asked-Why should not UAA developinto a full fledged Doctoral Institution? The questions posed by thestudy authors assume that the situation in Alaska continues to reflectpast needs and opportunities. We should instead be questioning theunderlying assumptions that have been used to make decisions con-cerning which programs are supported in the various MAUs. Whichgraduate programs should UA support? Where are they most effec-tively and efficiently located? The “failure” of UAF is irrelevant.You can’t design an effective system when the design is alreadyskewed by disallowing one outcome.UAA must have enough doc-toral students to attract serious research professors. We don’t wantto see our career (research) opportunities limited simply because weare at UAA and not at UAF. Productive faculty will consider leavingthe University if they do not feel valued by the administration.

27 Nevertheless, the extent to which training, coursematerials, supervision and evaluation are consistentacross the campuses, and sometimes even insidecampuses, is in doubt. This is an issue that UA mustaddress, as it speaks to academic quality and main-tenance of standards. It is possible that resolution ofsome of these matters might involve collective bar-gaining issues, but they do need to be addressed.

33


Page 25 of 5036

RecNo Fisher Committee Recommendation Page Our Comments28 The UAFT agreement recognizes that community

college, community campus and vocational-technicalcollege faculty are different individuals with differentresponsibilities. We agree and note that the differ-ing missions and scope of these units is one of thereasons why it would be wise to differentiate furtherthe four-year institutions (UAF, UAA and UAS) fromthe UAFT-oriented units, and administer them andrecord their results separately.

34 The UAFT CBA does NOT say that they are different with differentresponsibilities. The UAFT represents faculty on various campuses.If they think that UA needs to differentiate campuses based on unionaffiliation, why did they eliminate the community colleges (exceptfor PWSCC)? Also, administrative structure should not be based onunion affiliation.

29 Further, we cannot help but note that UAF, UAA andUAS would not be savaged so much in national ratingsystems if their retention and graduation numbers didnot include students from the community campuseswho have not already earned an associate degree. Weregard this as a win-win proposition for all concernedand recommend that the President move in this direc-tion.

34

30 We recommend that the President give very strongconsideration to negotiating changes in the CBA thatwill provide more faculty salary flexibility among theinstitutions and that UAF be accorded a different setof peer institutions that more closely fits its doctoralresearch role.

35-36 According to Fisher Committee recommendations UAA cannot be adoctoral institution because UAF is a doctoral institution and UAFshould get higher faculty salary because they are a doctoral insti-tution. That’s a very circular argument. This appears to be furtherjustification for maintaining a situation where UAA cannot developdoctoral programs. This approach will mean that “salary flexibility”will thus be unevenly applied given that not all UAF faculty have aresearch component in their workload. Therefore, it does not makesense to accord a different set of peer institutions to the UAF facultyas a whole.


Page 26 of 5037

RecNo Fisher Committee Recommendation Page Our Comments31 We have two recommendations with respect to the

UNAC CBA. First, the President should work to in-crease the share of the total salary pie devoted to mar-ket and merit raises. If the State and the Universitytruly believe in excellence, then they should rewardit.

37 The difficulty, of course, is how one defines merit. Is this intendedto provide power to define merit via a shared governance model, orto place all of the power to define merit in the hands of an arbitrar-ily selected group of administrators? Why do they not recommendrewarding the same things for UAFT faculty?

32 Second, the President should end the situation whereone external salary survey (the Oklahoma State Uni-versity study) applies equally to all three MAUs. Aswe detail below, this has worked distinctly to the dis-advantage of UAF, which realistically has a very dif-ferent set of peer institutions than UAA and UAS.Further, it also sometimes has resulted in a strangepattern of faculty raises that one administrator has la-beled “anti-merit”.

37 The University does not use one comparator for all faculty at UAAbut should. Salary comparators should not be based on union affili-ation


Page 27 of 5038

RecNo Fisher Committee Recommendation Page Our Comments33 Regardless, we recommend that the President com-

mission a new faculty salary study that comparesUAF, UAA and UAS faculty salaries to those at care-fully selected peer group institutions for each MAU.UAF, UAA and UAS each should have the oppor-tunity to participate in a new and updated selectionof peer group institutions, which should reflect com-parable size, missions, programs, research output,etc. The goal should be to substitute MAU-specificpeer groups for the Oklahoma State University salarystudy and to amend the CBA as necessary. Such anew analysis should take into account of cost of liv-ing differentials and attention also should be givento differing supply/demand conditions, academic dis-cipline, level of programs, and external market fac-tors. Coincidentally, such a study also will presentan opportunity to examine if the University has anyprotected class salary problems relating to gender orethnic origin. If, after adjusting for relevant otherfactors, such an analysis leads to the conclusion thatsalary adjustments need to be made for either individ-uals or groups, then the President should recommenda plan to the Regents to do so and make it a priorityin collective bargaining.

40 The data that is referenced in the lead-in to this recommendationdoesn’t actually support the report’s claims about UA faculty salariesor rather, the data presented seems to support the claims, but the con-clusion is flawed due to a questionable approach to the data. Com-paring UA faculty salaries to salaries at peer institutions is good, andcomparing costs of living in Alaskan cities with those elsewhere isgood, but doing them separately distorts the picture. In order for thecomparisons to be valid, the report shouldn’t have compared salariesat UAA to universities in small cities (read: lower salaries), but thencompared Anchorage’s cost of living to large cities (read: highercosts of living). This is the sort of error that would result in a paperbeing summarily rejected from a quantitative journal; that the writ-ers of this report considered it acceptable here raises questions aboutthe rigor of any of the analyses in the report.Specifically, the Fisher Report compares Anchorage to several West-ern US cities, a Western US average, and a US average. It doesn’tcompare Anchorage’s CPI to a comparable city. The Western andNational averages are pushed higher by very expensive and verylarge urban areas. According to the data in the Fisher Report, An-chorage will not appear to be too expensive to a job candidate fromNew York or San Francisco, however, our cost of living would beconsidered outrageous to a candidate from many cities in the mid-west. When Anchorage is compared to cities of comparable popula-tions, it is a totally different story. Anchorage is approximately 30%more expensive than those comparable cities.In any event, if such a study is commissioned, it needs to take intoaccount not just institutional characteristics, but also communitycharacteristics.


Page 28 of 5039

RecNo Fisher Committee Recommendation Page Our Comments34 We strongly commend the Alaska Scholars program,

but nevertheless recommend that the President probeits effectiveness along with the University’s other fi-nancial aid programs. To wit, precisely how suc-cessful are all of the University’s scholarship pro-grams in terms of retaining and graduating awardeesand how many awardees subsequently remain in thestate if they graduate? Are there notable differ-ence between and among the academic disciplines interms of Alaska Scholars attractiveness and success?Would it make more sense to offer more (fewer)scholarships with higher (lower) stipends? Shouldan attempt be made to endow the well-regarded UAScholars Program?

42 Any increase in student scholarship programs would be a good idea,due to the increasing cost of tuition.

35 We pose these questions in the context of what webelieve should be a general examination of how theUniversity utilizes its scarce scholarship funds. Ide-ally, the University will expend its limited schol-arship funds strategically in order to attain specificgoals. Software now exists that permits institutionsto vary their scholarship and financial aid offers inorder to reach certain goals, e.g., maximization ofenrollment, or other magnitudes such as SAT scores,retention, graduation, etc. We recommend that UAexplore such software. This would permit intelligentstrategic decision-making with respect to enrollment.

42 We are somewhat skeptical about the simplistic claim that we onlyneed to have this software and change financial aid to have higherretention and graduation rate.


Page 29 of 5040

RecNo Fisher Committee Recommendation Page Our Comments36 “Bureaucratic” is an adjective often utilized by UA

students to describe their interactions with the Uni-versity. Many would like more variety and im-proved quality in the food selections they may choosefrom; more and less expensive parking; and, more re-sponsive financial aid service from individuals “whosometimes regard us as adversaries.” These are itemsthat UA should work on, though in truth these com-plaints differ little in tenor and amount from thoseone hears on nearly any state university campus. Ifthere is a difference here, it is that the University’s re-tention and graduation rates are sufficiently low (seebelow) that the University really does need to deter-mine why so many of its students drop out.

43 As we mentioned in our comments to the previous recommendation,we are somewhat skeptical about the simplistic claim that we onlyneed to have this software and change financial aid to have higherretention and graduation rate.

37 In general, students typically spoke in favor ofstrictly designated fees, whether for additional com-puter work stations, more Internet bandwidth, ad-ditional on-campus entertainment, or intercollegiateathletics. We recommend that the President exploresuch possibilities with student leaders and determinewhat, if any, designated fees students might favor inorder to improve the quality of their lives at the Uni-versity.

43 Student fees should be used in the area for which they are intended.


Page 30 of 5041

RecNo Fisher Committee Recommendation Page Our Comments38 A host of factors can be deduced to account for the

disappointing retention and graduation performanceof University of Alaska students. The most impor-tant appears to be the fact that all three major MAUcampuses also function as community colleges andtechnical institutes. As such, they enroll a wide va-riety of students who variously have no intent of ob-taining a degree, or already know they will move, orare under prepared. Distinctive history and culture,financial pressures and the state’s weather possiblyall may play a role. It is clear that one reason somestudents depart from UA is the comparative absenceof campus-based, need-based student financial aid.

45 The “it is clear” in the last sentence of this recommendation impliesthat some sort of comprehensive study has been done, but we seeno reference to it in the report. Was such a survey done, or is thecommittee extrapolating from a small number of anecdotes here?Why students begin studies and then disappear is a good ques-tion.We are not sure what “actual data” Fisher et al are suggesting.One would be at a loss to figure out how to collect it besides survey-ing students who have left, and they are not always easy to find.In part we are using the wrong data. 6 year grad rates are based onfirst time, full-time freshmen. However the average student age atUAA is 30, only 35 % are full time. 80% work, many full time.( p.41 of the Fisher Report).There are a wide variety of reasons why students drop out of UAA,e.g. financial, academic, lack of interest. Some students transferto “outside” universities and obtain degrees there. These studentsare not tracked. Certainly, more can and should be done to sup-port students. However, this recommendation assumes (and it is awidespread assumption these days) that ensuring college comple-tion for every admitted student, or at least the vast majority of them,should be the goal of every postsecondary institution. Despite that,though, there is also something to be said for college acting as asort of “quality control” mechanism. That is, if grades actually areintended to mean something, and if it is expected that it can be pos-sible to fail a course, then one would expect that some students willnot make it through what is supposed to be a rigorous experience.This is naturally even more the case at an open access university likeUAA, where there are inherently fewer filters on the preparedness ofentering students.


Page 31 of 5042

RecNo Fisher Committee Recommendation Page Our Comments39 At the end of the day, it is apparent that UAF, UAA

and UAS in many ways are not comparable to manyof the state universities to which they are compared.Nevertheless, it is incumbent on the University to domore than it has to find out why the University fallsshort in this arena and take remedial steps.

45 If these Universities are not comparable, then why compare them?Also the last sentence is an example of a category of statementswhich are basically sound but not very profound.

40 We strongly recommend that the President of theUniversity of Alaska make the improvement of stu-dent retention and graduation one of his very highestpriorities in the next few years. The focus should beupon discerning facts, causes and remedies. To ig-nore this problem is to waste the resources both ofstudents and the State of Alaska.

45 It certainly is a widespread assumption that student retention andgraduation rates are a crucial measure of the strength of a university,but this is generally phrased as an assertion without evidence (asit is in this report). However, 100% retention and graduation ratescould well signal a university that expects no learning or other workfrom its students (aside, perhaps, from the payment of tuition). Thisseems to be an area where the individual campuses are best situatedto examine the circumstances that are contributing to retention andgraduation problems, rather than have this be a centralized task.

41 Alaskans now are among the most lightly taxed citi-zens in the country and changing this circumstancewill neither occur quickly, nor without substantialpolitical carnage. While such discussions occur,however, state financial support for the University ofAlaska could dwindle. The University should antici-pate such circumstances and begin to model less gen-erous budgets. Unfortunately, we observe the strate-gic plans of UAF, UAA and UAS largely do not ap-pear to reflect such possibilities and appear to as-sume, or at least hope for, worlds worthy of Dr. Pan-gloss.

47 We do not think the subject of taxes is appropriate here. UA shouldanticipate and prepare for various funding scenarios. Presumably,this can be done as part of UAs upcoming strategic planning, andUA faculty are willing to help with that planning.


Page 32 of 5043

RecNo Fisher Committee Recommendation Page Our Comments42 repetitive financial cuts at the margin on all programs

spread mediocrity. In the long-term, we believe itwould be far better that the University completelyeliminate whole programs and departments in orderto sustain its support for its most vital and highestquality programs.

47 This recommendation has huge implications, but as is so often thecase in this document, it is woefully short on guidance. We wouldbe interested, for example, to learn what the writers of the reportconsider to be the characteristics of ”most vital and highest qualityprograms”. Without such details, this recommendation is not im-plementable in any coherent way. Eliminating programs that were“underperforming” was under consideration in the mid 90s. One hasto be careful to maintain programs that contribute to a well-roundededucation.

43 We point this out because UA is not without needsand might well find it attractive to float bonds for stu-dent housing or other revenue-generating activities inthe future. Suffice it to say that the UA System hasthe ability to do so though this would require somereallocations.

47 - 48

44 President Gamble and the Regents should bear thisin mind as they consider reorganization. System ad-ministrators portray the classic “We’re from the gov-ernment and we’re here to help you,” attitude, com-mented a sarcastic administrator. “Sometimes theyjust come looking for work and problems,” com-mented a faculty member. We deal with recom-mended reorganizations of the UA System in an-other section. It is sufficient here to note that themajor place in the UA System where commentatorssee inefficiency is in the UA System Central Office.Whether or not fair, this is a widely held view.

49 We agree with the Fisher Group on this and note that Fisher agreeswith the McTaggart-Rogers report.


Page 33 of 5044

RecNo Fisher Committee Recommendation Page Our Comments45 We recommend that the President charge appropri-

ate staff with the investigation of public/private part-nership possibilities with respect to housing, but alsowith respect to a variety of other activities that mightbe carried out jointly (including partially privatizedservices, joint research and development projects,real estate developments, etc.). The President andthe Board ultimately might opt not to do any ofthese things, but nevertheless should make them-selves aware of the potential benefits and costs beforeit makes its choices.

50 Public-private partnerships have some advantages, but they haveseveral disadvantages, as well, ranging from the easily measurable(e.g., the inclusion of a profit motive often drives up the cost to con-sumers or employees) to those difficult to measure (e.g., conflictsresulting from differences in institutional culture). It is worth not-ing that universities might be able to gauge the positive and negativeaspects of such ventures better than many organizations, as long asthey find a way to tap into the knowledge base of their own faculty,specifically those faculty with expertise in the subject.

46 UAS does not compete in intercollegiate athletics,a circumstance we do not believe should change.While intercollegiate athletic teams might improveUASs identity, community support and student re-cruitment, they usually bring with them a variety ofproblems and expenses. Their operating costs wouldbe high and initiating teams would require major in-vestments and general fund tax subsidies for facili-ties, staff and travel. This seems an ill-advised courseto follow at this stage in UAS’s development.

51


Page 34 of 5045

RecNo Fisher Committee Recommendation Page Our Comments47 At the end of the day, however, we recommend

that the respective campus chancellors keep a closeeye both on programmatic expenses in intercolle-giate athletics and the amount of time student ath-letes are unable to attend scheduled classes becauseof their lengthy road trips. Intercollegiate athlet-ics have gotten more presidents and chancellors intotrouble than virtually anything other than presiden-tial houses. Vigilance, good hiring and observableinterest in each university’s teams will go a long waytoward avoiding scandals.

52

48 While the recipe might differ in other states, there aresound reasons in the case of Alaska to centralize pro-grammatic approvals, technology standards and re-lated major technology resource decisions (such asthe adoption of common student, employee and fi-nancial records systems), the allocation of capital andbuildings, the assessment and formulation of bud-get requests, the overall allocation of maintenancereserve funds, negotiation of collective bargainingagreements (though we see no reason why each MAUmight not have its own CBA and be heavily involvedin that negotiation) and fringe benefit programs.

53 What are these “sound reasons”? The answer to this question, andit is an important one, is unclear from the report. UA does have aSystem Academic Council that reviews new programs, and decideswhich programs to send to the BOR for approval. We do not agreeit would be a good idea for each MAU to have their own CBA.


Page 35 of 5046

RecNo Fisher Committee Recommendation Page Our Comments49 On the other hand, there is no persuasive reason

why individual professorial and employee evalua-tions, nearly all hiring, college and departmental bud-gets, faculty promotion and tenure, disciplinary spe-cific curricular decisions, the provision of studentservices, alumni activities, fund raising and most in-stitutional research should be centralized. Individualcampuses are much closer to the action.

53 - 54 We agree. UAA, UAS and UAF are separately accredited universi-ties. It makes no sense to have faculty evaluations, curriculum, andfaculty promotion and tenure reviews done at the statewide level,

50 Note that much greater individual campus autonomyoften is sensible in states that boast much largerfinancial and population bases and multiple largemetropolitan areas. In such circumstances, compe-tition among institutions and the development of dis-tinctive, specialized campuses often is highly desir-able. Plainly speaking, we do not believe the Stateof Alaska has sufficient population and resources topermit such unrestrained competition.

54 It is unclear why the committee draws this conclusion. This is partic-ularly the case given that earlier recommendations seem to assumethat there is enough competition between UAF, UAA, and UAS thatstudents could easily move from the one to the other when, e.g., theychange majors (see recommendation #2). Why are the campusesseen as being in close competition in those cases, but not when itcomes to campuses developing their own missions? This paradox isnever resolved in the report.


Page 36 of 5047

RecNo Fisher Committee Recommendation Page Our Comments51 The command and control regulatory model that the

UA System has is perceived to have adopted over thepast decade is in need of clarification and modifica-tion. “The statewide people act like they’re listening,but in reality they’ve already made up their minds andthey’re simply trying to look reasonable”(the tellingcomment of an administrator whose sentiment wasoft repeated). Rather than issue obiter dicta fromFairbanks, the UA System administration henceforthshould emphasize well-designed incentives (often fi-nancial, though sometimes in the form of privilegesrelating to processes and local decision-making) toits institutions. The institutions will respond if the in-centives are intelligently designed, clear and the pro-cess is not polluted. They need not be dragooned intocertain behaviors. Indeed, they will increase their en-trepreneurial behavior if incentives exist for them todo so. We note in passing that entrepreneurial behav-ior sometimes has been in short supply in the Alaskasystem of higher education. In any case, institutionspredictably react negatively to, and even actively sub-vert, fiats that seem not to recognize their individualcircumstances.

54 We fully agree that providing incentives for changes will work farbetter than the imposition of administrative mandates. The ultimatesuccess of new initiatives hinges on having faculty and staff whoembrace or ‘own’ the initiative. Mandates rarely work well, but in-centives and support work much better.


Page 37 of 5048

RecNo Fisher Committee Recommendation Page Our Comments52 Increasingly, UA Systems executive staff, under the

authority of the President, should act as staff to theBoard and provide them with analysis and recom-mendations rather than wielding final administrativeauthority. If all parties behave intelligently, mutualrespect will follow. We note here that central boardstaff often have earned the respect in similar situa-tions in other states.

54 Faculty appreciate and respect the constitutionally-defined role ofthe BOR to shape the broad direction of UA. However, we wouldbe concerned if this recommendation led to micro-managing someof the narrower steps that each MAU, their faculty, and staff need tocontrol so they can make the MAU successful.

53 One of the more productive functions that the refash-ioned central staff might accomplish is to encouragethe development of joint and cooperative academicprograms within the system. The clinical/communitypsychology doctoral program provides a template forsuch programs. Courses, faculty and support areshared and students have the ability to benefit froma much larger portfolio of resources and specialties.With appropriate incentives, we are convinced that avariety of other programs could be mounted in thesame fashion. We also note in passing that this con-stitutes a very nice way to provide UAA with ad-ditional advanced graduate responsibilities withoutgranting it free-standing doctoral program authorityand the concomitant additional costs that inevitablywould accompany such a development.

55 Where the report uses the phrase “this constitutes a very nice wayto provide UAA with additional advanced graduate responsibilitieswithout granting it free-standing doctoral program authority”, onecould easily instead read “this constitutes a very effective way todeny UAA any independence with regard to doctoral program au-thority”. The phrasing used by the report’s authors sounds moregenerous, certainly, but the actual effects of both phrasings wouldbe the same.


Page 38 of 5049

RecNo Fisher Committee Recommendation Page Our Comments54 The model we have outlined here assumes that the

size of the current UA central staff may be reduced,perhaps in the target range of 60 to 80 positions(down from an estimated 200 today). Note that Vir-ginia, which has a highly regarded public system ofhigher education, maintains a State Commission forHigher Education with a staff approximating 40. TheVirginia system, of course, is less bureaucratic andmore entrepreneurially oriented than the UA System.We recommend that the Board allocate some of thesesavings to the MAUs, some to the support of commu-nity college/vocational/technical education, and thatsome be retained to help provide incentives to en-courage desired future behavior.

55 We agree with the Fisher Group on this and note that Fisher agreeswith the McTaggart-Rogers report.

55 Recognizing this, the major change we have to rec-ommend is to accord UA’s vocational, technical andcommunity college activities much greater promi-nence and not viewed as “four-year lite”(the observa-tion of a sometimes frustrated individual associatedwith workforce development).

55 Workforce Development and technical/vocational programs are im-portant to the state economy. These days, these programs usuallyrequire computer/mathematics/communication skills.


Page 39 of 5050

RecNo Fisher Committee Recommendation Page Our Comments56 We do not believe tuition and fees at the community

colleges/community campuses/vocational/technicalunits should be identical to that at the senior cam-puses. Indeed, they should be lower. Further,the statistical results associated with the communitycolleges/community campuses/vocational/technicalunits should be reported independently of the seniorcolleges. This will cure a variety of external visibilityand ranking problems.In addition, in the state’s two largest metropolitan ar-eas, formal, named community colleges should becreated. In the case of Fairbanks, the Tanana Val-ley campus already serves some of these purposes.These campuses should permit UAF and UAA to be-gin slowly to increase their admissions standards andto focus student services. Note that the creation ofthese community college units definitely does not im-ply the construction of new campuses.

56 In 1987 Anchorage Community College merged with the Universityof Alaska, Anchorage due to a budget crisis. It took an enormousamount of time and energy to merge curriculum and departments.We cannot imagine splitting departments, and starting all over again.Standards can be imposed for programs. Many of the voca-tional/technical programs are nationally accredited, and have veryhigh admission standards. The Tanana Valley Campus in Fairbanksis now named the UAF Community & Technical College. UAA hasa Community & Technical College.Regarding tuition, at least at UAA, something related is already be-ing done: Tuition is lower for lower-division courses than for upper-division courses. The authors of the report do not seem to evaluatewhether they find this approach an acceptable policy or not.This rec-ommendation of Fisher sets up a system of 2nd class citizens relatingto faculty, students, etc. It is divisive and causes friction betweendepartments, how courses transfer, etc. We are not sure what theproblems are that they are trying to fix regarding ranking, etc. Thisis an example of academic elitism. This shows that the Fisher groupdoes not understand many of the important nuances in the systemand region.


Page 40 of 5051

RecNo Fisher Committee Recommendation Page Our Comments57 The lesson of best practice advancement across all

institutional types is three-fold. Members of gov-erning boards must assume responsibility for the ad-vancement effort; it cannot be completely delegatedto presidents, no matter how pivotal a role they mustplay. Second, the governing board, the president, andthe professional(s) in charge of the basic functionsof advancementnamely alumni relations, communi-cations (incorporating university and government re-lations), and fund- raisingmust work as an integratedteam. Every function (alumni, public relations, et.al.) must be related in terms of attracting resources(dollars). Finally, the professionals in charge ofthese three principal advancement functions must beforward-thinking and broadly competent profession-als who enjoy the respect of the academic commu-nity they exist to serve. The absence of any one ofthese characteristics will seriously weaken any insti-tutional advancement program.

59

58 New Foundation Board of Directors members shouldbe recruited and trained to take responsibility for thefundraising performance of the University.

60


Page 41 of 5052

RecNo Fisher Committee Recommendation Page Our Comments59 We suggest a reorganization along the following

lines: the office of the President should be the primeagent for corporate research working in close con-junction with the several campuses but virtually allother fund raising activities should be housed in theseparate campuses. Typically, alumni and others donot give to systems; indeed, the UA System office isnot accredited. Their prime loyalty and sense of obli-gation is to their individual alma maters, but we notehere that whatever, thoughtful consideration shouldbe given to Curt Simic’s recommendations.

61 The fact that the system is not accredited and the fact that loyalties ofalumni are towards their respective Alma Mater is certainly at vari-ance with the oft repeated justification of “ one university” touted byFisher.

60 The key to private support is relatively simple: do it“right” and support will be forthcoming, and it hasnot been done “right” in Alaska. The national aver-age for alumni giving is over 17 percent, and some in-stitutions go as high as 60 to 70 percent. The alumnigiving percentage is the prime denominator for effec-tive planned giving, capital campaigns and even cor-porate support. The President and the three Chancel-lors must each take thoughtful note of this. There arecountless publications and conferences available, andAlaska, with its extraordinary academic culture, willbe an ideal place to raise support for public higher ed-ucation. There is only one private institution, AlaskaPacific, and it is relatively small but has a presidentwho appears to appreciate the methodology of fundraising.

63 UAA is an economic engine for Alaska and Anchorage. This shouldbe stressed more, because many people think we are a drain on stateresources.


Page 42 of 5053

RecNo Fisher Committee Recommendation Page Our Comments61 We recommend staffing the program as necessary

and then carefully monitoring the costs. As a guide-line, every new dollar spent should generate addi-tional revenues of $6 to $8 over time.

63

62 We recommend the employment of an appropriatefirm to conduct a feasibility study for a capital cam-paign. Such a study, independently and anonymouslyconducted, will test the University’s case for privatesupport and help to determine the level of interest bycurrent and prospective donors in providing fundingthrough a comprehensive campaign.

63 We hope that the benefits of using more consultants exceeds thecosts.

63 An immediate major gifts and planned giving effort,coupled with the implementation of new processes,should lead to a prompt and positive impact on the“bottom line,” engaging alumni and friends in the fu-ture of the University while setting the stage for suc-cessive campaigns.

63

64 What is required, then, is a much more analytical,even hard-hearted evaluation of alumni activities andpersonnel. The bottom line is that either the eventsand the personnel demonstrably improve the Univer-sity of Alaska’s position, or they should be modifiedor abandoned. We recommend that each campus ana-lyze its alumni events and personnel to determine theextent to which there is evidence that they actuallyfurther UA objectives, particularly alumni and fundraising. As noted below, as is often the case in “thelower 48,” we recommend that each of the campusalumni officers be primarily responsible for the an-nual fund.

66


Page 43 of 5054

RecNo Fisher Committee Recommendation Page Our Comments65 Additional opportunities remain in creating focus,

use of graphics and photography and in targetingfuture students and families as well as in cross-marketing, using print publications to drive audi-ences to the excellent website, among others.

67 In recommendations # 65- #72 the Fisher report is getting into mi-cromanaging.

66 Opportunities to strengthen the System website in-clude stronger use of photography for impact (a needin many publications, as well), a direct link to admis-sions information for prospective students and fami-lies (although it is likely that many would go first tothe individual campus sites, which do provide suchlinks) and more interactive features to encourage re-peat visits. Many photos on the home page are runtoo small for maximum impact, and this is also truein many publications. Best practice is fewer photosrun larger. Quality of some photos is also mediocre,with too many posed shots of people and not enoughshowing genuine interaction.


67 Publications appearing to target potential studentsand families feature a secondary tagline, “Learn,engage, change” (University of Alaska Southeast).This, plus a more consistent brand and family look,might be encouraged throughout publications of con-stituent campuses. For out of state students, whorepresent a strong source of higher tuition revenue,the advantages of studying in a diverse, outdoors-oriented Pacific Rim environment could appeal tostudents in many disciplines.



Page 44 of 5055

RecNo Fisher Committee Recommendation Page Our Comments68 Photography is an area that needs to be addressed

throughout. As noted, many photos are run too smallfor impact. Too many are obviously posed, showingeither no or little interaction, with subjects staring di-rectly into the camera. In others, such as the frontpage of the Winter 2009 System newsletter, shots ofequipment appear with no people for context. Somephotos could benefit from tighter cropping. An up-grade in this area would benefit the entire publica-tions and web areas.


69 System Newsletter. In addition to enhanced photog-raphy, as noted above, high-priority needs for thispublication are reduced word counts to avoid a clut-tered look and to enhance readability and a less static,more contemporary design.



Page 45 of 5056

RecNo Fisher Committee Recommendation Page Our Comments70 On the front page, for example, the “Inside This

Issue” sidebar is much too copy-heavy, discourag-ing readers from venturing inside. Simple bulletswithout text would be more effective. Inside fea-tures such as “Partnering with business and industry”(pages 2-3, Winter 2009 edition) similarly containtoo much “gray”.Use of bolding, subheads and largerboxes/screens would make this spread more reader-friendly. Photos without people are uninviting andlack context, and cutlines are too small to read. Call-outs should be run larger with enhanced spacing andleading. Photos bled off the edges of the page wouldcreate a less “boxy” look while allowing for greaterimpact. The use of phone numbers, websites and e-mail addresses to drive readers to the relevant site atthe bottom of the page is effective, but could be runone or two points larger.


71 Even given budgetary constraints requiring two-color, the second color could be used more effec-tively in boxes, graduated screens, sidebars and spotcolor. If budget permits one color signature inside,it would enhance the graphic appearance. More il-lustration and graphics, in addition to photos, wouldenhance readability and break up copy.


72 Generic 4-Panel Color Publication. The entire piece,however, appears cluttered, with too much copy andsome point sizes too small to read easily. Either apanel needs to be added, or copy needs to be cut inlength.



Page 46 of 5057

RecNo Fisher Committee Recommendation Page Our Comments73 Facts, Not Fiction This piece is extraordinarily ef-

fective graphically, with an attractive color paletteand excellent content. If it is not presented online,it should be, perhaps as rotating images on the frontpage. Other uses for the “Did You Knows?” could beexplored - perhaps as tent cards at System-sponsoredevents, on the back of business cards, as sidebars inthe newsletter, etc.

72 Recommendations #73 to #82 are too focused on minor issues.

74 University of Alaska at a Glance. Again, some ofthis information “successes in efficiency” could bepresented on a rotating basis on the homepage. Copyon the back panel is crowded, and the graphic, “StateAppropriation Comparison” run too small to be eas-ily read.


75 Training Tomorrow’s Workforce Today. The samecomments made above about point size of the font,reduced word counts and use of colored screens be-hind copy to break up “gray” apply to his publica-tion. Copy reversed over some sidebars with coloredscreens is difficult to read because of small type andlack of contrast. While the color palette and use ofsecond, third and fourth colors are effectively graph-ically, design must always support content and mes-sages.

72 - 73 Recommendations #73 to #82 are too focused on minor issues.

76 In addition, while some photos are excellent, well-composed and well-cropped, most are run too smallto be effective. Use of bullets to summarize key mes-sages is effective, particularly on the back cover, aspace often wasted in publications.



Page 47 of 5058

RecNo Fisher Committee Recommendation Page Our Comments77 In this and other publications, thought should be

given to using them as vehicles to driving audiencesto the excellent System website, permitting reducedword counts with additional information availableonline.


78 Most publications reviewed are those of the Univer-sity of Alaska Southeast. Key messages and graphicidentity need to be better integrated with those ofthe System to cross-market the brand. This appearsto have been done effectively with campus and theSystem websites, but individual campus publicationsneed to be taken to the next level.

73 - 74 Recommendations #73 to #82 are too focused on minor issues.

79 In regard to family look and graphic identity, the UASystem logo should appear in a position subordinateto that of the individual campus identity; color paletteand design template need to complement that of othercampus and System publications.


80 With regard to messaging and targeting of key audi-ences, the Alaska Southeast pieces are unfocused anddo not seem to target out-of-state students who mightenroll because of unparalleled opportunities to liveand study in a vast wilderness area that offers oppor-tunities for recreation and fitness not easily found in“the lower 48.”



Page 48 of 5059

RecNo Fisher Committee Recommendation Page Our Comments81 Recruiting publications targeting potential students,

families and referral sources need to showcaseacademic programs building on Alaska’s uniquestrengths and capabilities, creating interest and ex-citement among out-of-state students. In addition,outcomes should be more strongly emphasized: whatcan a student gain from a UA education that he orshe might not obtain from an out-of-state institution?System campuses might consider adding a dedicated“outcomes” page to their websites, with a link fromthe System site.


82 Finally, the System might consider investing in acomprehensive publications audit (CASE and otherswill undertake these free of charge) and also review-ing CASE and other award winners in the “admis-sions” area to enhance its offerings.


83 We recommend that the System and the individualcampuses generate new strategic plans that accu-rately reflect their respective missions, are realisticin terms of their financial implications, and clearlyindicate funds sources, responsibility for implemen-tation, and time lines for implementation and assess-ment.

76 Is this just a problem with terminology? Strategic plans are big-picture plans, with details such as timelines and specific implemen-tation plans left to other sets of plans that derive from them. If theFisher Committee is actually stating that there should be no big-picture plans to give the general outlines for the specific planningthey describe here, then we find this recommendation problematic.If it’s just a terminology confusion, then this is sensible, as long asthere is still a means for more general planning to take place.

84 In our view, however, before additional strategicplanning occurs, it is essential that action be taken toclarify the missions of the respective institutions andthat it deal explicitly with the future roles of UAF andUAA.

77 How this occurs, the process that is identified and used to accom-plish this clarification, needs to be one that does not put UAA at adisadvantage. Assumptions that guide the process need to be madeexplicit and critiqued in an impartial manner.


Page 49 of 5060

RecNo Fisher Committee Recommendation Page Our Comments85 We recommend that the President and the Board of

Regents meet with the Governor, legislative leadersand citizens throughout the state to outline the fullimplications of the deferred maintenance challengeand to propose solutions. It is the obligation of thestate to maintain its physical assets; that is clear.However, the state’s willingness to invest in that obli-gation might increase if the UA System were to pro-pose some substitutions of refurbished, energy effi-cient buildings for new construction, greater use oftechnology and distance learning to serve additionalstudents, and a significant reduction in the size ofthe UA System office. The possibility of earmarkedstudent fees for maintenance of classroom buildingsalso should be explored, provided the state at leastmatches student contributions. Proposals of this ilkmay antagonize some parties. Nevertheless, action isneeded and both the size of the deferred maintenanceproblem and the likelihood that the state’s financialposition will deteriorate in the next few years requireinnovative solutions and compromise.

77-78 Deferred maintenance is a huge issue. Students, staff and facultyappreciate a work environment that is comfortable so that they canwork at maximum efficiency. We think deferred maintenance shouldbe disallowed.


Page 50 of 5061

agenda - university of alaska anchorage · pdf filesuzanne browner patrick sullivan robert...

Documents