UNH Faculty Senate
Summary Minutes from 3 April 2000
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
FACULTY SENATE
APRIL 3, 2000 MINUTES SUMMARY
I. Roll - The following Faculty Senate members were absent:
Bornstein, de la Torre, Macieski, and VonDamm. Absent as work
to rule were Barretto, Echt, Garland, Givan, Planalp, Reardon, Roh,
Stine and Williams. Excused were McConnell, Naumes, Nordgren
and Sherman.
II. Update on the Status of Collective Bargaining - The president
asked the faculty to check the following web site for information on
the system's latest contract proposal: http://usnhbot.unh.edu. In the
recent negotiation session, the system proposed a five-year contract.
In the fourth and fifth year, the contract would include a merit/equity
pool of 0.55% and 0.80% respectively. The effective average
increase per year for the five years for a full professor would be
4.37%, for an associate professor 4.44%, and for an assistant
professor 4.64%; and the weighted average for all ranks for the five
years would be 4.45%. There also would be an immediate one-time
lump sum payment of $1000, as well as some flat dollar amounts
added to the base. There would also be an appeals process for any
unanticipated consequences of the proposed changes in health
insurance benefits. In addition, the proposal includes an increase in
summer session salaries. For example in fiscal year 2001, summer
session salaries would increase by 14% for full professors, by 16%
for associate professors, and by 18% for assistant professors.
The president said that retroactivity is a negotiable issue, as are all
parts of the proposed agreement. Although the system web site says
that "in rejecting the USNH proposal, the AAUP refused to offer a
proposal of their own or indicate where they stood in the current
bargaining process", Steve Fan said that it was actually the system
negotiator who refused to offer a counter proposal other than
suggesting some procedural changes for future negotiations.
The president said that, regarding health benefits, the system has
proposed a joint appeals process through which faculty could be
compensated for any reductions in health benefits that were not made
clear in the materials that compared the benefits of the Point of
Service plan with the EBPA plan, which the system would like to
terminate in order to reduce costs. Faculty who take the Point of
Service plan will get a dental plan that is better than the EBPA dental
plan. However, the union says that, if the EBPA plan is terminated,
faculty health benefits would be reduced for all plans, including a
reduction in the definition of usual and customary charges. Also, the
recommendations from the proposed appeal process would be non-
binding. The union has asked for a thorough review of the system's
proposed health benefit plan changes.
Both the faculty union and the system say that their goal is to have
UNH faculty salaries equal the average at comparable universities,
but there is disagreement on which universities are comparable. The
union had used the five New England state universities as the
comparator group, but the system had used twelve universities as
their group of peer universities. Now, however, the system wants to
move away from the list of twelve peer universities and is discussing
an even larger comparator group. However, faculty say that
regionality is important in a comparator group for salary purposes.
The union states that the system salary proposal is inadequate,
because not only would the faculty not move towards the average
salary in comparable universities but the faculty would even lose
ground under the proposed contract. For example, in fiscal year 2000
the average salary increase in the five New England state universities
is 4.64%; but the system is only offering 4.25%. Moreover Academe
says that for fiscal year 2000 the national average salary increase for
continuing faculty at public category I universities is 4.9%.
In the past, the system said that there was no money in the budget for
higher salaries; but now our enrollment has increased; and so the
union says that there should be more money available for salaries. If
we look at the twelve universities the system has claimed are peer
institutions, the system's proposal would put UNH faculty at a level
of 11.6% below the average of those universities, for fiscal year
2000. The union says that a summer school boycott will cost the
university more money than it would cost to accept the union's
contract proposal. Regarding any likelihood of a strike, there will be
a hearing in May by the labor board. Steve Fan says that he will call
the system office and ask for another negotiation session or for
moving to the next negotiating step.
A professor said that faculty would like to compare the AAUP's web
site with that of the system; and he asked if the fact sheets which
Steve Fan distributed are on the AAUP's web site. Professor Fan
replied that they are not, because the web master is in Prague. The
union says that the system is holding the monies for salary increases
and is profiting by the interest on those funds and that this will be
true even if retroactivity is attained. The system insists that all merit
salary increases should be decided by the deans, but the union says
that the merit funds should be distributed by the departments. A
professor asked fellow senators, after hearing the presentations by
both the president of the university and the chief negotiator of the
AAUP, whether any of the senators were prepared to accept the
university system's contract proposal or whether any would return to
their departments and recommend to their colleagues a settlement on
system terms. Silence ensued.
III. Adjournment - The meeting was adjourned.