UNH Faculty Senate
Summary Minutes from 2 November 1998
I. Roll - The following Faculty Senate members were absent: Bornstein,
Condon, Morris, Pugh, Williams, Zia. Excused were Afolayan, Garland,
Roh, and Walsh.
II. Minutes - Discussion of the minutes was tabled to the next regular
III. Communication from the Chair - The Faculty Senate chair gave a
chronology of events leading up to the writing of the academic impact
statement on the Deans' and Provost's budget recommendations.
Historically the Agenda Committee has served as a resource during the
summer when the Faculty Senate and its other committees do not meet.
During the discussions this summer, the Agenda Committee gave a great
deal of input and affirmed that any changes to the general education
requirements would have to be approved by the Faculty Senate. The chair
strove to maximize the faculty input on the budget recommendations,
within the bounds of confidentiality stipulated by the administration.
Over a third of the Faculty Senators participated in this task.
Confidentiality was maintained so that the discussion could be wide
ranging and changes could be made without causing unnecessary harm to
programs considered for and then removed from the list of budget cuts.
The Faculty Senate meetings are open to all tenure-track faculty, and the
minutes are available to everyone on the internet. The chair distributed
meeting transcriptions. The Agenda Committee has emphasized that it did
not endorse the cuts but wanted to provide a University-wide view of
their academic impact.
IV. Budget Shortfall - Some faculty senators said that the Senate should
have insisted that the Senate as a whole have access to the documents on
a confidential basis or that they should have been declared open and not
confidential, with time to discuss these documents in a Faculty Senate
meeting and give input prior to the President's approval of the budget
plan. A faculty member suggested that the chair tell the President that
the release of the proposed cuts prior to a Senate discussion has created
problems. A professor said that the Senate and the administration should
coordinate when the President intends to make a decision on
responsibility center management and arrange that the Senate committee
reviewing this issue will be able to bring a motion to the full Senate in
time for discussion and input, before the decision is made by the
A senator said that the academic impact statement on the budget was very
well written, well thought out and forceful. Many senators expressed
support for the chair, saying that he had the best of motives and worked
hard to increase senators' involvement in the budgetary process.
Concern was expressed about the University System's rainy day fund. A
suggestion was made to call upon the University System to explain in
detail why increasing system reserves are needed in this time of
budgetary shortfall. In the past, the Senate voted that funding for the
system offices be reduced to zero. However, the money goes to the system
before it is received by the University. A suggestion was made that we
should ask the university administration to review the mission statement
and then articulate why it is better to make cuts in University programs
rather than to reduce the budget of the system offices.
A question was asked whether motions can be brought to the floor of the
Senate without first being reviewed by a Senate committee. The chair
answered that they can come to the Senate without committee preparation
but that committee input is usual and preferred.
James Farrell moved and distributed two motions. The first, which was
seconded by Barbara Krysiak and is designated motion III-M1, calls
upon the state legislature to significantly increase state funding of
the University so that no less than twenty percent of its total
revenue comes from state funding. Bob Connors moved and Pedro de Alba
seconded that the third paragraph from the bottom be deleted.
A friendly amendment was made and accepted to change that paragraph
to: "Be it hereby resolved, by the Faculty Senate of the
University of New Hampshire, that the Legislature and the Governor of
the State of New Hampshire should fulfill their obligation to provide
adequate funding for the University of New Hampshire". After
extensive discussion, the amendment to change the wording of this
A friendly amendment was made to change the fifth paragraph from
the bottom to: "And whereas a long history of under funding, budget
cuts, and high tuition make the university increasingly less
attractive to prospective students". This amendment was accepted.
The main motion III-M1 passed with the two amendments.
The last motion by James Farrell, regarding withholding $534,000 from
the University System, was seconded by Rosemary Wang and is designated
motion III-M2. A friendly amendment was made and accepted to
change the first paragraph to: "Whereas the University System has
ordered that $4.5 million be cut from the UNH budget". After some
discussion, a motion was made, seconded and passed unanimously, to
refer motion III-M2 to the Academic Affairs Committee to report at the
next regular Faculty Senate meeting, which will be in three weeks.
V. Adjournment - Today's meeting was adjourned.