2012/2013 FACULTY SENATE COMMITTEES
(2/1/2013 version)
Academic Affairs Committee
Michael Ferber, English, LA, Chair
Rosemary Caron, Health Management & Policy, CHHS
Vince Connelly, Education, LA
Karsten Pohl, Physics, CEPS
Dain LaRoche, Kinesiology, CHHS
Evangelos Simos, Economics, WSBE
Steve Tuttle, Thompson School, COLSA
Leah Woods, Art & Art History, LA
Daniel Bromberg, Political Science, LA
Campus Planning Committee
Anthony Pescosolido, Management, WSBE, Chair
Kerry Kazura, Family Studies, CHHS
William Berndtson, Biological Sciences, COLSA
Art Greenberg, Chemistry, CEPS
Svetlana Peshkova, Anthropology, LA
Finance and Administration Committee
Carolyn Mebert, Psychology, LA, Chair
Thomas Ballestero, Civil Engineering, CEPS
Ihab Farag, Chemical Engineering, CEPS
Fred Kaen, Accounting and Finance, WSBE
Cheryl Whistler, Molecular, Cell. & Biomed. Sci., COLSA
Information Technology Committee
Edward Hinson, Mathematics, CEPS, Chair
John Halstead, Natural Resources, COLSA
Chris Harrist, Recreation Mgmt. & Policy, CHHS
Elizabeth Varki, Computer Science, CEPS
Barry Shore, Decision Science, WSBE
Sandhya Shetty, English, LA
Michael Jonas, UNH-M
Library Committee
Alberto Manalo, Natural Res, & Environment, COLSA, Chair
____________________, LLC, LA
Joel Hartter, Geography, LA
Patrick Shannon, Social Work, CHHS
Thelma Thompson, Library
Lin Guo, Marketing, WSBE
Michael Carter, ECE, CEPS
Research and Public Service Committee
Wayne Fagerberg, Molecular, Cell. & Biomed Sci., COLSA, Chair
Ken Baldwin, Mechanical Engineering, CEPS
Pei-Jou Kuo, Hospitality Management, WSBE
Scott Weintraub, LLC, LA
Richard Zang, UNH-M
Elizabeth Mellyn, History, LA)
Student Affairs Committee
Barbara White, Occupational Therapy, CHHS, Chair
Marion Dorsey, History, LA
David Richman, Theatre, LA
Jo Laird, Earth Sciences, CEPS
Larry Veal, Music, LA
Subhash Minocha, Biological Sciences, COLSA
Agenda Committee of the Faculty Senate
Willem deVries, Philosophy, LA, Chair
James Connell, Physics, CEPS
Todd DeMitchell, Education, LA
Gene Harkless, Nursing, CHHS
Nancy Johnson, Thompson School, COLSA
Professional Standards Committee
Todd DeMitchell, LA, 2012/13 academic year, Chair
Marco Dorfsman, LA, through the 2013/14 academic year
John Sparrow, UNH-M, through the 2012/13 academic year
Tom Foxall, COLSA, through the 2013/14 academic year
Arthur Greenberg, CEPS, through the 2012/13 academic year
Michael Gass, CHHS, through the 2012/13 academic year
Carole Barnett, WSBE, through the 2013/14 academic year
Deanna Wood, Library, through the 2013/14 academic year
University Curriculum and Academic Policies Committee
Christina Bellinger, Library, to 7/1/13, 2012/13 Chair
Cesar Rebellon, LA, to 7/1/13
Dante Scala, LA, to 7/1/15
Lu Yan, LA, to 7/1/14
John Carroll, COLSA, to 7/1/14
Michael Carter, CEPS, to 7/1/14
Robert Macieski, UNH-M, to 7/1/15
Michael Charpentier, CEPS, to 7/1/15
Alberto Manalo, COLSA, to 7/1/15
Brooks Carter, CHHS, to 7/1/15
Jim Wible, WSBE, to 7/1/13
Lisa MacFarlane, VPAA's designee
Neil Vroman, Chair of the Academic Standards and Advising Committee
Dylan Palmer, Student Body President
Sonic Woytonic, Graduate Student Senate President
Discovery Committee
Daniel Beller-McKenna, LA, to 7/1/15
Rosemary Caron, CHHS, to 7/1/15
Wayne Fagerberg, COLSA, to 7/1/14
Ihab Farag, CEPS, to 7/1/14 (Brian Chu proxy to 7/1/2013)
Dennis Britton, LA, to 7/1/14
Tom Safford, LA and the Faculty Senate, to 7/1/12
Steve Pugh, UNH-M, to 7/1/15
Bill Ross, Library, to 7/1/15
Jing Wang, WSBE, to 7/1/14
Lisa MacFarlane, provost’s office (ex officio, non-voting)
Kathy Forbes, Registrar (ex officio, non-voting)
Sean Moore, Honors Program (ex officio, non-voting)
Barb White, Dir. of the Discovery Prog. (ex officio, non-voting except for ties), Chair
Jessica Fruchtman, Student Senator (non-voting)
Committee on Organization of Other Entities
Bob Taylor, COLSA, Chair
David Richman, LA
Stacia Sower, COLSA
Art Greenberg, CEPS
Jim Wible, WSBE
Bob Woodward, CHHS
Promotion and Tenure Standards Oversight Committee
Jeff Diefendorf, LA, Chair, as FS appointee
Stephen Calculator, CHHS
Kent Chamberlin, CEPS
Stephen Ciccone, WSBE
? Joanne Curran-Celentano, COLSA
Robert Eshbach, COLA
Jim Malley, CEPS deans office
Tom March, TSAS
? Alison Paglia, UNH-M
Dante Scala, COLA, as FS appointee
Chris Shea, from Academic Affairs
Regina Smick-Attisano, TSAS deans office
Deanna Wood, Library
Teaching Evaluation Form Implementation Committee
Paula Salvio, Co-chair (fall)
David Kaye, Co-chair, as FS appointee
Chris Bauer, CEPS
Marco Dorfsman, COLA
Nivedita Gupta, CEPS deans office
Marc Herold, WSBE
` John Kraus, Institutional Research
Alberto Manalo, COLSA
Steve Pugh, UNH-M
Bill Ross, Library
Toni Taylor, Institutional Research
Sally Ward, COLA, as FS appointee
Barbara White, CHHS
2012/2013 FACULTY SENATE COMMITTEE CHARGES
(1-7-2013 version)
The following are the Agenda Committee's recommendations for senate committee priorities for 2012/2013. The order in the list of charges below does not imply the priority of the charges. These charges have come from the senate's recommendations, from needs of implementing policies and programs, and from administrative issues under the shared governance model at UNH. Committees may also consider other issues, as needed, and are requested to submit proposed new charges to the Agenda Committee for approval and for scheduling of agenda time at senate meetings. Each committee should consult with and inform its corresponding administrator(s).
Academic Affairs Committee
The chair of this committee should attend meetings as an observer to the Institutional Programs and Services Committee of the Board of Trustees and also to the Systems Academic Planning Committee.
Charges:
1. Continue monitoring of the January term and consider the outcome and assessment of the pilot. Monitor the impact of January term on academic quality and on hiring practices for tenure-track faculty, if any.
2. Consider whether the comparative roles of faculty and administration in governance and the tenure-track and promotion procedures and decisions have changed over time. [See college by-laws and composition of decision-making committees.] Examine the composition of different “initiative” committees according to administrative role (head of program, dean, etc.) and faculty role (research faculty member, tenured or tenure-track faculty member, faculty member in administrative role, senator). Have the committees been composed in ways that foster disinterested faculty review rather than partisan advocacy? For example, are faculty members present due to a “special interest” in the initiative or as a senator representing the senate as an institution, or both? Of particular interest are the following groups: (1) The Blue Ribbon Panel on Research, (2) the 7/22/2011 Retreat on the Merger of CEPS, COLSA and EOS, and (3) the 2020 Strategic Plan. [See FS motion XVI-M15.]
3. The senate has invited the provost to develop a written plan for e-learning at UNH. Review any drafts of the plan that come forward. Consider how the senate can assess the academic effectiveness of changes, such as electronic learning or January term. How can we identify what are the best practices and where they are working well? How should e-UNH be defined; what should its place at UNH be; and how will e-UNH relate to residential programs? What is the mission of e-UNH? How and by whom will e-UNH courses be approved? How can the course quality be overseen and ensured? What will the authority structure be? Should we offer courses on line that are offered face to face? In on-line courses, how can cheating be prevented? How can the instructor know that it is actually the student taking the exam and doing so alone and that the questions have not been acquired earlier? Oversee upcoming e-fora.
4. At the present time, faculty in a student's major department decide what transfer courses are acceptable for the major; but the registrar accepts for general credits all transfer courses from accredited institutions. Review that practice and make a recommendation to the senate.
5. Have students’ grade been changed without the faculty member’s knowledge and, if so, under what conditions? Also, has a student’s status in the course has been changed after the course was finished, in such a way that the failing grade would not appear on the transcript? What kind of information is provided by the deciding committee to the chair of the senate’s Academic Affairs Committee? Is enough information is provided, and is input needed from the professor of the class? [See Professors Carolyn Mebert and Richard Zang.]
6. There appear to be two problems with the numbering of TSAS courses. First, course numbers can vary from 200 to 400 depending only on the constituency of the course; and secondly, TSAS students are claimed to be at a disadvantage relative to students of other accredited two-year degree-granting institutions with regard to transferring credits into UNH. Investigate these issues and propose a coherent policy on the numbering of TSAS courses. [See senate motion XIV-M12.]
7. UNH relies increasingly on non-tenure-track faculty, slowly decreasing the proportion of tenure-track faculty present in the institution. What effect is this shift likely to have on the quality of instruction at the university, based on current research?
Campus Planning Committee
The chair of this committee or the chair's designee should attend meetings as an observer to the Space Allocation, Repair and Renovation Committee. The CPC chair or designee should attend meetings as a member of the Campus Master Plan Steering Committee.
Charges:
1. Track the Master Plan development and implementation, and communicate with the Office of Campus Planning and with the Faculty Senate on issues that arise.
2. Provide a member of the Campus Master Planning Steering Committee. [See FS motion XVI-M22.]
3. Oversee the setting up of an open forum this fall in response to senate motion XVI-M22 which says: “let it be resolved that the Faculty Senate calls on the Faculty Senate and the administration to sponsor an open forum next fall in which UNH’s vision of public private ventures is presented and the pros and cons of public private ventures are debated.”
4. What was the relationship, if any, between the Campus Master Plan and the advancement office?
5. Monitor issues concerning faculty and staff parking.
Finance and Administration Committee
The chair of this committee or the chair's designee should attend meetings as an observer to the Financial Affairs Committee of the Board of Trustees and also the Board of Trustees' Finance Committee for Investments. The Finance and Administration Committee chair should attend meetings as a member of the Central Budget Committee.
Charges:
1. Review data concerning the effect of changes introduced by RCM III and consider the implications for the university’s academic mission, decision-making procedures (recentralization), class sizes, faculty load, departments' ability to replace faculty who leave or who have advanced in the university [see Mimi Becker and also the 4/21/03 Finance and Administration Com. report, as well as the spring of 2004 Central Budget Committee report], and lecturers/adjunct faculty employment [see item X of the 5/10/04 Ag. Com. minutes].
2. Assess how well individual college RCM advisory committees are functioning. [See 4/21/03 Finance and Administration Com. report, item V of 5/3/2010 FS minutes, item III of 11/16/09 FS minutes and the 7/20/2011 senate Planning seminar minutes.]
3. Consider and report on the potential faculty role in the capital campaign. Relevant issues include: (a) whether the senate should request faculty representation through senate appointments on the planning committee for the capital campaign, (b) how operating budgets will be funded for maintaining new structures funded by the capital campaign, (c) whether financial aid could be a good part of fund raising and will help the colleges, and (d) the replacement of the vice president for advancement and president of the UNH Foundation..
4. Consider how the senate can assess the cost effectiveness or lack thereof of changes in methods of instruction. How can we identify cost-effective approaches to problems and challenges in instruction? What are the best practices and where are they working well?
5. Develop policy indicating when it is appropriate for research faculty to be funded by the UNH budget. A general assumption is that, aside from proposal writing, research faculty are funded exclusively through external grants or contracts. In reality, this is not the case, since some research faculty receive significant portions of their compensation through the UNH budget. Policy which includes oversight provisions needs to be established.
Information Technology Committee
Charge:
1. Investigate and report to the Faculty Senate on any plans regarding the IT campus infrastructure and/or services that might affect the academic mission of the university.
2. Review the 12/18/2001 report of the Network Security Task Force and the extent of implementation of its recommendations. Does this report need further updating for a new decade?
Library Committee
Charge:
1. Consider concerns from the library faculty that several years of budget cuts have diminished the library’s ability to support the academic mission of the university. With regard to internationalization, an influx of foreign students will require the library to provide appropriate resources and educational programs for which it does not have collection or staff resources. Interdisciplinary studies will also require the library to provide access to new materials that it may not have. Due to budget cuts, the library is currently engaged in a substantial periodical subscriptions cancellation project and increasing reliance on document delivery services and Interlibrary Loan to serve users.
Research and Public Service Committee
Charges:
1. Under current guidelines, research faculty who are being considered for promotion have their cases evaluated by the tenure-track faculty serving on the affiliated college Promotion and Tenure Committee. This arrangement has been problematic in the past because of differences between the published evaluation criteria for research faculty and the criteria for advancement many tenure-track faculty believe apply to any faculty member regardless of role. In particular, college promotion and tenure committees have ruled in the past that all persons with a faculty title should have demonstrated significant and pervasive interaction with students, even though such interaction is not dictated for research faculty by existing policy. This disconnect between tenure-track faculty expectation and policy should be addressed.
2. Policies governing the weight given the votes of faculty (including tenure track, “formula funded”, research, clinical, etc.) differ among departments and colleges. In AY 2011-12, the Faculty Senate charged the RPSC with developing a uniform policy regarding voting privileges for faculty. The committee determined, however, that circumstances across these bodies differed significantly enough that a one-size-fits-all policy would not be advisable. The committee also determined that the various procedures and guidelines should be clearly stated in writing and easily available to all members of the faculty in that academic unit. The current charge to the RPSC is to ensure the implementation of this recommendation and to verify that all units of the university have written guidelines governing voting privileges of such members.
Student Affairs Committee
The chair of the Student Affairs Committee will try to ensure that a member of this committee or the Faculty Senate can represent the faculty at Student Senate as needed. The Student Affairs Committee is encouraged to invite a Student Senate observer to attend Student Affairs Committee meetings.
Charge:
1. Consider the request for the Thompson School and UNH to submit an application to the Service Members Opportunity Colleges Consortium for institutional membership. Especially look into the issues of the academic residency requirement, credit for learning from military training and experience, and the current UNH policy of utilizing only “upper-division” ACE credit guidelines for evaluating military courses. [See 3/23/2012 letter from Regina Smick Attisano.]
2. Investigate the evidence for students’ concerns about advising problems and the results of a recent survey on advising and report back to the Agenda Committee. [See item IX of 5/7/2012 FS minutes.]
3. The introduction of e-books as texts within our courses gives rise to new sets of issues. For instance, during open book tests, the use of laptops or mobile devices is not usually permitted. But a student using an e-book may have no other means of access to the text in the course. A less common situation during an open book exam is that an instructor allows students to use their book on a laptop/mobile device; however, a student who invested in the e-text to save money may not own a device that can be brought to class (e.g. has a desktop or uses a cluster/library computer). Consider means of addressing such issues and raising awareness among faculty and students about potential issues with e-books. [See Student Rights, Rules, and Responsibilities.]
Professional Standards Committee
The chair of this committee is the vice chair of the senate and represents the Faculty Senate when the UNH Policy on Academic Misconduct is triggered. The chair of this committee serves as a member of the Financial Conflict of Interest Disclosure Review Committee and also of the Responsible Conduct of Research Advisory Committee.
Charge:
1. Consider any quasi-adjudicatory charges which arise.
2. UNH relies increasingly on non-tenure-track faculty, slowly decreasing the proportion of tenure-track faculty present in the institution. Since non-tenure-track faculty carry no administrative responsibilities, the administrative duties of the remaining tenure-track faculty increase as their numbers diminish. What effect is this likely to have on the governance of the university and the workload of the tenure-track faculty?
University Curriculum and Academic Policies Committee
Charges:
1. Check to see if any proposals for particular new schools are being made, review any such proposals, and report your recommendations to the Faculty Senate.
2. Monitor RCM III by specifically considering inter-unit problems and the ways in which strategic initiatives will influence the fiscal health of academic programs; and report your findings to the Faculty Senate. (UCAPC may want to avail itself of the data collected by the FAC regarding the FAC charge two.)
3. Review the to-be-proposed sustainability dual major.
Discovery Committee
Charge:
1. Continue implementation of the Discovery Program.
Committee on Organization of Other Entities
Charge:
1. Review the financial structure of Information Technology and the Advancement Office. [See the 7/20/2011 senate planning seminar minutes, the 7/18/2011 Ag. Com. minutes, and item VIII of the 5/7/2012 FS minutes.]
Promotion and Tenure Standards Oversight Committee
Charge:
1. The committee is charged with ensuring (1) that all academic departments consider and respond in writing to promotion and tenure issues (raised in the report of the ad-hoc Committee on Promotion and Tenure Standards, presented by committee Chair Jeffry Diefendorf on April 2, 2012) that are relevant to respective practices, (2) that the Offices of the Deans of each college (including Manchester and the university library) and the Thompson School Director consider and respond in writing to promotion and tenure issues raised in the report that are relevant to their administrative practices, and (3) that the Office of the Vice President of Academic Affairs consider and respond in writing to promotion and tenure issues raised in the report that are relevant to its administrative practices. The committee is empowered to recommend working groups bringing together representatives from department, college, and higher administrative levels to address issues that require collaborative action based on review of the responses collected from all three levels.
Teaching Evaluation Form Implementation Committee
Charge:
1. The committee is charged with (1) ensuring that all academic departments review and comment on the evaluation form proposal (the senate helped expedite this process by circulating relevant materials to all college deans, the Library Dean, the Director of the Thompson School, and department chairs for distribution to the faculty); (2) planning and conducting a pilot study using the form during fall, 2012; (3) providing and organizing. for fall of 2012, a process for academic departments to propose questions designed to supplement the general form in view of particular, distinctive, pedagogical contexts within their curricular programs (e.g., evaluative questions designed to address lab courses, large enrollment courses) if departments so choose; (4) conducting formal review and revision of the general form, as well as proposed supplemental questions specific to particular pedagogical contexts during spring, 2013; and (5) planning for full implementation of the general form in fall, 2013.
Faculty Senate Vice Chair
Review the Faculty Senate motions of the last academic year and report to the senate on their implementation, by the end of November, so that there will be time to deal with any lack of implementation.
Corresponding administrators are as follows:
Academic Affairs Committee - Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs; Dean’s Council
Campus Planning Committee - Associate Vice President for Campus Planning
and
Real Property Management and Campus Planner
Research and Public Service Committee – Senior Vice Provost for Research and Senior Vice Provost for Engagement and Academic Outreach
Student Affairs Committee - Vice President for Student and Academic Services
Finance and Administration Committee - Vice President for Finance and Administration
Library Committee – Dean of the University Library
Information Technology – Chief Information Officer