UNH Faculty Senate

Summary Minutes from 17 April 2000


                      
        			UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
               			       FACULTY SENATE
                      
          APRIL 17, 2000                                         MINUTES SUMMARY
                                           
          I.  Roll - The following Faculty Senate members were absent:
          Bornstein, de la Torre, Gross, Macieski, McCann, Nordgren and VonDamm.
          Absent as work to rule were Barretto, Carr, Echt, Garland, Givan,
          McConnell, Planalp, Roh, Stine and Williams.  Excused were Reid and 
          Sherman.
                             
          II.  Communications with the president - The president announced the
          appointment of Stephen Reno as the new system chancellor.  She said
          that he views his role of responsibility as the image of public higher
          education and as liaison with the legislature, rather than campus-
          specific activities.  Decentralization has occurred which will give the
          university authority over its financial reserves and new positions, as
          well as curricular decisions.  The University Curriculum and
          Academic Policies Committee will therefore be very important for
          reviewing changes in the curriculum.  The university would like to
          make adjustments in the procedures for collective bargaining, in
          duplication of benefits staff and human resources personnel, and in
          combining the parts of the university's endowment which are now
          managed by the system and the foundation.  The president said that
          the chancellor sees a need for better communication with the public.
                                                 
          III.  Review of the faculty's service role - Faculty are concerned that
          the service component is not valued as it should be.  Provost Hiley
          said that he feels we do a very good job of evaluating teaching and
          research but are less effective at evaluating faculty service of all
          types and that he intends to improve this situation.  It seems that we
          have expected good documentation for teaching and scholarship but
          not for service, and we do not distinguish clearly between
          participating in the governance of the university and sharing faculty
          expertise with the citizens of the state.  The provost said that we
          should clarify, record and evaluate faculty service and include it more
          fully in considerations of promotion and tenure.  Faculty provide
          service in three categories:  university service, professional service,
          and outreach; and there is much discussion nationally about these
          aspects of faculty work.
          
          A professor said that, when we have a university where faculty are so
          understaffed, it is very hard for departments to provide faculty for
          outreach.  Vice President Sundberg said that the Journal of Outreach
          and Public Service has many good articles.  Faculty members said
          that their departments have to tread a fine line between responding to
          citizens' questions and avoiding competition with  businesses. 
          Faculty can share information about current research that would not
          be available to the businesses.  The coordinator of the Masters in
          Public Administration Program in Manchester said that his program
          wanted to be on the web site but couldn't get the site changed to
          include the program.  The president suggested that this issue be
          pursued through the provost's office.  The university is creating a
          center for graduate education at UNH-Manchester, to include MBA,
          MSW, MHA, and MPA programs.
          
          The provost said that at UNH there are certain base-line expectations
          in teaching, research and public service but that these can be spread
          within the department or, for smaller departments, within the school
          or college.  Also, expectations will be different for senior and junior
          faculty.  Such a system would require much clearer guidelines, and
          the provost hopes that the Faculty Senate will take this on as a task
          and provide a set of guidelines and criteria for service that give a
          basis for real evaluation and reward.  A professor said that he had
          been told that the ratio should be five eighths for teaching, two
          eighths for research and one eighth for service.  The president replied
          that this might be an average but that one size does not fit all and that
          we need some new guidelines.  Possible rewards for service might
          include salary or time.  We should review what is being done at other
          universities.  The provost said that, if faculty recommend that a
          university-wide committee on service be set up, he would be happy
          to do so.
          
          A faculty member said that he wished he could see a future where
          faculty would be rewarded for service but that disincentives for not
          doing service seem more likely, because most raises will probably be
          across the board.  He hopes there will not be a rigid set of criteria that
          will be difficult to follow, across disciplines and in the many different
          types of departments.  The provost agreed that we need to set
          standards that allow for flexibility.  A professor questioned what
          additional service might be accessible for faculty and said that we
          need to consider both quality and quantity.  Another faculty member
          said that often there is no choice on what service one does, because
          the need in the department is so great to get specific jobs done.
          
          IV.  Communications from the chair - The senate chair said that the
          senators have been sent a list of the continuing and new faculty
          senators, which were known at that time, and also the rules for the
          upcoming election process.  Outgoing, continuing and new senators
          may make nominations, but only the continuing and new faculty
          senators will vote for the 2000/01 Faculty Senate officers and Agenda
          Committee members.  The chair added that he has met with the
          incoming chancellor.
          
          V.  Minutes - Jim Farrell moved and Paul McNamara seconded that
          the following be added at the end of section II of the April 3 Faculty
          Senate minutes: "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.  No senators replied in the affirmative." 
          However, several senators said that their silence after that question
          in the last meeting did not indicate their agreement with the union
          position.  A friendly amendment was suggested and accepted to
          change the last sentence to "Silence ensued."  The minutes were
          accepted as amended.
          
          VI.  University Curriculum and Academic Policies Committee slate -
          The senate chair said that the UCAPC slate is not yet complete and
          will be considered at the next senate meeting.  The proposed
          members are John Rogers, Robert Connors and one other from
          Liberal Arts; Michael Carter and Matt Davis from CEPS; Raelene
          Shippee-Rice and Stephen Hardy from SHHS; Tom Pistole and Tom
          Foxall from COLSA; and one professor each from WSBE and UNH-
          M.  Some of the faculty named above have said that they would
          participate only after a contract settlement.  A professor asked that
          consideration be given to women when filling positions.
          
          VII.  Motion on an open forum - Paul McNamara (proxy for Andrew
          Christie) moved and Deb Winslow seconded a motion that "the
          senate will invite the AAUP Executive Committee and the full Board
          of Trustees to an open forum at the Johnson Theater (or other
          similarly suitable place on campus) to discuss the absence of a
          contract for the past two years.  The forum will allow equal and
          reasonable time for the AAUP Executive Committee and the Board
          of Trustees to give presentations from the stage.  Also, at least as
          much time will be allowed for audience members to ask questions
          from the floor using an open microphone.  This event should be
          scheduled for later this month.  The invitation to both parties, their
          responses to the invitation, and the scheduled event itself should be
          well publicized throughout the university community.  The chair (or
          vice chair) of the senate will introduce and manage the event."
          
          The senate chair said that he had to declare the motion out of order. 
          He cited two articles in the Constitution of the Faculty Senate. 
          Article three says that "Decisions by the Faculty Senate which
          envision fundamental changes to current practice must be ratified by
          the tenure-track faculty as a whole.  If one third of the senators or the
          majority of the tenure-track faculty of any college or school votes
          that a decision is of such fundamental importance, a faculty meeting
          to ratify the decision will be called by the Faculty Senate chair...." 
          This article does not pertain to the current situation.  Article nine,
          however, says that "Collective bargaining issues may be discussed,
          but no official action may be taken."  Therefore a vote on the
          proposed motion is prohibited by our constitution.  However, the
          chair said that, extra-officially so as not to set a precedent, he and the
          Agenda Committee would be willing to set up such a forum if the
          senate wishes and if both sides are willing to participate in the forum. 
          The chair added that a senator could appeal the chair's decision,
          which would require a majority vote to overturn.
          
          Many years ago, a previous forum was moderated by the chair of the
          Academic Senate, not the Faculty Senate; and the Academic Senate's
          constitution did not include the clause preventing the Faculty Senate
          from taking any official action on collective bargaining issues.  A
          senator pointed out that the full Board of Trustees was not likely to
          show up and that the wording of the motion would have to be
          changed if it were used.  Other senators said that un-official action
          would avoid conflict with the senate constitution, but some professors
          replied that it would be more effective to use the Faculty Senate's
          name in the request.
          
          After much discussion of the pros and cons of the official motion,
          John Pokoski proposed that we take an informal straw vote saying
          that, although the Faculty Senate cannot act on this, many faculty
          want such a forum and therefore Pedro de Alba will try to set up a
          forum if both sides are willing to participate.  A faculty member
          suggested that student leaders would be very willing to participate in
          the request for such a forum.  An unofficial straw vote was proposed
          that Pedro de Alba and the student leaders should try to set up a
          debate with the participation of both sides.  The senate agreed on this
          plan, and Pedro de Alba will ask the student leaders to add their
          names to a letter which he will send to both sides, asking
          representatives of the system and the union to participate in the
          forum.
          
          VIII.  Motion on academic minors - A professor stated that a quorum
          exists until challenged.  The chair of the senate's Academic Affairs
          Committee moved that the senate approve the motion on minors
          that was attached to today's agenda.  The motion would change the
          Academic Policies section of the Student Rights, Rules and
          Responsibilities Handbook to add that "There is no limit on the
          number of overlapping credits allowed between minors."  The
          committee concluded that the Faculty Senate should determine the
          basic policy and that courses used for one minor may be applied
          toward the fulfillment of another minor, since a department can
          establish requirements for the fulfillment of its own minor but cannot
          dictate policy for course approval for minors granted by another
          department.  There is no limit on the number of minors a student may
          earn, and a given course could count towards a minor and for
          something else as well.  Minors may serve to enhance a student's
          resume'.  Each department determines the requirements for minors in
          that program, and a review committee approves the requirements. 
          The senate needs to spell out the policy on overlapping credits
          between minors, so that students will be advised uniformly.  The
          motion was voted on and passed easily.
          
          IX.  Adjournment - The senate chair said that the proposed motion on
          summer school will appear early in the agenda of the next Faculty
          Senate meeting.  Today's meeting was adjourned.
          
          

to the main Minutes page.