UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
FACULTY SENATE
13 APRIL 1998	MINUTES SUMMARY

I.  Roll - The following Faculty Senate members were absent:  Afolayan, 
Balling, Barkey, Burger, Evans, Fink, Greenlaw, Guidry, Halstead, Henke, 
Herold, Lugalla, Morgan, and Sohl.  Excused were DeMitchell, Hinson and 
Walsh.

II.  Communications from the Chair - The chair said that she wrote an 
article on the subject of adequate education, which was published by 
Fosterıs Daily Democrat and has been distributed to the senate.  A 
tabloid is being prepared which reflects national and regional coverage 
of faculty in the news.  This is part of an effort to demonstrate the 
broad impact of faculty at UNH.  A cover letter for that tabloid has been 
distributed, and your input on the project is requested.  Planning is 
continuing for the Distinguished Alumni Recognition, which will be held 
in February.  Please give your ideas regarding this also.  There was some 
confusion in an article in The New Hampshire regarding Thompson School 
credit transfer.  Most Thompson School credits will transfer fully to 
UNH, but only as elective credits and not as general education or major 
credits.  Therefore transferring credits may not substantially reduce the 
time to degree.

III.  Minutes - The minutes of the previous senate meeting were approved 
unanimously.

IV.  Scholarly Misconduct Motion - The Professional Standards Committee 
has revised the motion on scholarly misconduct.  A previous draft had 
been presented to the Faculty Senate prior to its February 9 meeting and 
discussed and tabled at that meeting, with a request for input from all 
faculty.  A revised version was distributed to the faculty prior to 
todayıs senate meeting.  Today a motion to reconsider the matter was 
made, seconded and unanimously passed.  John Seavey moved and Dennis 
Bobilya seconded that the Faculty Senate endorse the policy on misconduct 
in scholarly activity.

Concern had been expressed about the standard of proof being a 
preponderance of the evidence, but that standard is consistent with the 
federal guidelines.  Professor Seavey stated that, if we were to 
establish a higher standard of proof, there would then be two different 
standards, one for federal and one for non-federal, which the committee 
decided would be inappropriate.  However, the committee added a footnote 
to clarify what "preponderance of the evidence" means.  Also, the phrase 
"serious deviations from accepted practices" is part of the standard 
federal definition of misconduct.  The Professional Standards Committee 
added wording to specify that misconduct does not include honest 
differences or judgments with respect to scholarly issues, nor should it 
be interpreted to stifle academic freedom.  Anonymous complaints are 
allowed under federal policy and must be kept confidential.

A phrase was deleted regarding choosing members of the Peer Investigating 
Committee in consideration of their generational, racial and gender 
characteristics.  Regarding overlap of the inquiry stage with the 
designation of the Peer Investigating Committee, the Professional 
Standards Committee decided to retain the original process since, if 
there were a different group involved in the selection of the 
investigating committee, this new group would have to review extensively 
the whole situation.  This would not only be time consuming but also 
would involve too many people in these confidential matters.  The whole 
document has been reviewed to make sure that the use of words such as 
"may", "must", "should" and "will" is consistent with the intent.  
Non-substantive wording changes were made in the definition section and 
the sanctions section.  A definition of conflict of interest has been 
added in footnote six.

In peer institutions, there is a wide range of policy on scholarly 
misconduct, but almost all of them use the National Science Foundationıs 
guidelines.  In this document, the Peer Investigating Committee has an 
odd number of members; but the other committees do not, due to 
administrative structures.  As a standard practice, members of the 
committees on scholarly misconduct would be held harmless.  John Farrell 
made and Paul McNamara seconded an amendment that no member of the 
inquiry team shall serve as a member of the Peer Investigation Committee.  
The amendment passed with one nay.

Pointing out that the document specifies that the university will have 
legal counsel, John Farrell made and John Miller seconded an amendment 
that the subject of the investigation has the right to legal counsel.  
Todd Gross made a friendly amendment, which was accepted, to change the 
wording to "The subject of the investigation shall be informed that he or 
she has the right to legal counsel."  After discussion, the vote on this 
amendment passed with nineteen ayes, fourteen nays, and no abstentions.  
The motion to endorse the policy on misconduct in scholarly activity 
passed unanimously, with the two amendments.

V.  Report from the Library Committee - Robert Stibler, the chair of the 
Faculty Senateıs Library Committee, reported that the committee had 
participated in the budget process and had urged the university librarian 
to be more forceful in asking for increased library funding.  That effort 
was well received, and the library is in line for increased funding.  The 
committee met with a library consultant and also monitored the library 
construction project, which is still on schedule.  The library will be 
closed for a short time in August and will reopen one week before the 
start of the fall semester.  The committee presented a request for access 
through the back door of the library, but this was refused.  New programs 
should contact the librarian to discuss their needs in advance.  The 
Library Committee will give a written report for carryover to next year's 
committee.

VI.  Transportation Policy - The Transportation Policy Committee which 
began two years ago is advisory to the president and has representatives 
from all constituencies.  In 1996/97, the committee proposed reducing the 
number of cars on campus and using remote parking.  The traffic at the 
corner of Main Street and College Road delays the shuttle bus.  Adding a 
lane in that area would be expensive because of the steam lines under the 
road.  The loop road has been proposed to prevent traffic other than the 
shuttle from using this road and others in the central campus.  The loop 
road plan would also include two underpasses under the railroad, as well 
as sidewalks from the Field House to the West Edge Lot.  The university 
is withdrawing from participation in the Coast bus and will start its own 
service after Memorial Day.  This bus service is expected to go from 
Durham to and from Newmarket, Dover and Portsmouth.  The bus will stop 
near the Dover train station to connect with Amtrak passenger trains.  
Later, if there are any funds left over, bus routes might be added to Lee 
or other places.

Main Street is a busy road, and pedestrians should keep in mind that they 
should check for traffic even when they are in crosswalks.  Noise from 
motorcycles is disturbing to classes, when windows are open in warm 
weather.  Now we have more students with cars and more part-time faculty, 
which increases traffic.  Freshmen and sophomores should not have cars on 
campus, but exceptions are granted for both medical and employment 
reasons.  Teaching assistant and research assistant graduate students 
have faculty/staff parking permits.

VII.  Academic Computing - Jeffry Diefendorf chairs a standing committee 
to examine policies and priorities on academic and research computing.  
The committee has oversight, liaison and communication functions.  The 
committee has discussed email privacy policy and budget plans.  The 
capital campaign is expected to facilitate the electronic campus, desktop 
computing, computing support staff, distance learning, and enhanced 
student computing.  There has been great concern that administrative 
computing was much better off than academic computing.  The committee did 
a survey of faculty and student computing needs.  More mid-sized 
super-technology classrooms and more portable computer equipment are 
needed, along with more support staff. 

For tenure-track faculty, the committee would like to recommend a 
three-to-four-year computer replacement cycle.  The cost of this 
initiative would increase by 10% to 25% if all instructional faculty were 
included.  Would these computers be purchased centrally or through the 
colleges?  A faculty member asked that the university not standardize 
computing too much, saying that faculty need to spend their computer 
dollars according to their individual needs.  The committee will report 
to the president by the end of this semester.  A faculty member said that 
software on mainframe computers should be distributed to faculty 
computers, adding that site licenses are available for most statistical 
packages and should be for broad use, not just for the mainframes.  

Students have proposed a new computing general education requirement, 
which could be fulfilled through passing a test or taking an introductory 
course.  A professor suggested that computer skills should instead be 
made an admission requirement, with remedial courses available.  The 
university will encourage students to have their own computer on campus 
and may soon require this.  The committee is considering this issue.

A professor raised questions about recycling old computers from the 
university to public schools and about ownership rights of electronic 
material developed by faculty.  The committee chair said that there are 
serious problems about intellectual property rights that will have to be 
addressed.  Courts have ruled that, if university facilities are used, 
then the material produced, whether electronically or on paper, belongs 
to the university.  The committee plans to recommend a non-intervention 
policy.  For example, the university could monitor the number of hits on 
a server but would not read personal electronic mail unless the president 
authorized that because there was cause to believe that a violation of 
law or university policy had occurred.

VIII.  Budget and Responsibility-Centered Management - A professor said 
that responsibility-centered management is a big issue which could change 
the character of the university.  Faculty are concerned that this type of 
management would still leave decisions in the hands of the administration 
but would require local departments to generate their own funds and fight 
for funding.  A few programs could be funded beyond the income they 
generate.  Also, in the near term, one-time monies would be used to 
overcome some budget deficits.  What support and training would chairs be 
given for implementing responsibility-centered management?  Criteria for 
choosing a department chair might change.  Would there be sufficient 
uniform decision making and cohesive planning?

IX.  Adjournment - The meeting was adjourned.