UNH Faculty Senate
Summary Minutes from 13 September 1999
I. Roll - The following Faculty Senate members were absent: Bornstein,
de la Torre, Farrell, Grenier, Lukens, McCann, Pugh, Roh, and VonDamm.
Absent as work to rule were Christie, Garland, Reardon and Stine.
Excused was Givan.
II. Communications with the President - The president said that the
freshman class is larger this year than last. However, this big freshman
class replaces last year's large senior class; and so the total
enrollment this year is similar to the previous year, with only thirty-
four students more this year. This freshman class has more honors
students but slightly lower average SAT scores, and there are no marginal
admissions. These freshman are fifty-two percent in state and sixty
percent women. The university intends to set up a long-term enrollment
The university's revenues have increased 4.3 percent over last year, and
seventy-two percent of this increase is intended for salary and fringe
benefits. Collective bargaining is at an impasse. The fact finder's
report was accepted by the AAUP but not by the trustees. We must now
resume the negotiations to see if there is some common ground. Due to
the Claremont decision, the Governor has requested a seven to ten percent
recision plan by January 1. Senators are asked to read the entire fact
finder's report, which is available on the web at the following address:
III. Communications from the Chair - The Faculty Senate chair said that
Amy Gutman, speaker for the faculty luncheon, has received electronic
mail from some faculty asking that she not come to the university due to
the salary dispute. The chair said that he will provide the Faculty
Senate committee conveners with a list of the committee members by
tomorrow, so that committee meetings can be arranged.
IV. Minutes - The minutes of the last meeting were approved
V. Responsibility-Centered Management - Ken Appel said that
responsibility-centered management will not mean that the faculty will
have control over the amount of money that the university or a college
will receive. Colleges would be allowed to carry over funds from one
year to the next without getting permission from any central author-
ity. The central administration would have the power to transfer
funds from one college to another, although the administration could
not do anything that goes against the collective bargaining contract.
The administration has always had the power to change the distribution
Many faculty at the University of Illinois, which has a version of
RCM, feel that it is not a problem; but other faculty at that
university do not like RCM at all. Ken Appel said that under the UNH
plan for RCM, unless permitted by the deans and administration, there
will not be any need for decisions to go beyond the deans. He added
that there will be a faculty committee but that it is not clear what
authority the committee will have. In the first year, no budgets will
be changed by RCM; but after that time, some colleges would receive
increased funding and other colleges' budgets would decrease.
Another faculty member said that she has visited Central Michigan
University, which uses RCM; and this budgeting method gave a lot of
new power to the deans. The budget of each college would fluctuate
with the number of students and credit hours. If a well-paid senior
professor retires and a young faculty member is hired, the savings
could stay in the college. A professor suggested that we need to
think about ways to balance the deans' power. We need to look into
the details of the proposal and see if there are enough protections
and controls for the plan to work. A faculty member asked if the
deans would be able to set tuition for the students in that college or
decide not to support a part of the university which does not directly
create income, like the library. The Service Unit Advisory Board will
decide on the support for such units.
A senator will soon visit the University of Minnesota to inquire about
the type of RCM used there. The Faculty Senate chair said that, after
the senate has discussed the UNH plan further, he would like to have
the vice president for financial affairs come to the senate to discuss
RCM and answer questions about it. The chair asked that the senators
read the RCM report, which is accessible through the UNH web site.
Concerns were expressed that RCM would pit colleges against each
other. A professor from UNH-Manchester said that UNH-Manchester has a
budget with many similarities to RCM. Each program has to justify its
existence. However, he felt that the result was more democratic than
in the past. Other faculty commented that market value is not the
best way to evaluate a university program, adding that there are
important cultural considerations. The senate chair asked that
senators consult with their departmental colleagues and be prepared to
discuss this topic further at the next meeting.
VI. Work to Rule - Faculty want to do something to protest the
continuing lack of a contract and the system's rejection of the fact
finder's recommendation. Although it is difficult to choose an action
which will not have negative consequences, faculty need to choose
actions which will be in their best interest. A professor said that,
if we were to define work to rule as preventing attendance at Faculty
Senate meetings, the faculty would do themselves a disservice. The
senate is the faculty's own body and has a track record of preventing
changes which faculty did not want. One professor said that it is
important for faculty to stand up for what they believe and that, in
order to show protest over the lack of a faculty contract, he invites
faculty senators to join him in standing when the president speaks
with the senate. Another professor said that she voted for work to
rule but believes that it should not include the Faculty Senate
because the Faculty Senate was founded during work to rule so that
faculty would have a place to deal with important issues during such a
time. Another senator said that the Faculty Senate is a body that is
concerned with faculty affairs and suggested that the senate clarify
the situation by passing a motion that the senate should not be
affected by work to rule.
A professor said that his department discussed this issue at great
length and that his department will be unanimous on a strike vote.
However, he said that, if we do not send a representative to the
Faculty Senate and Executive Committee meetings, what decisions will
be made? Another professor said that faculty senators are in a
position to make a difference on issues such as RCM. Last year the
senate set up the University Curriculum and Academic Policies
Committee which will be an important check on changes during RCM and
is charged to protect the academic integrity of the university.
Another professor said that we should distinguish between governance
and service and that we can withdraw from service without withdrawing
from governance. He added that, for example, if we do not take
action, the university's parking committee may be planning to imple-
ment some parts of the old parking plan which most faculty do not
Discussion ensued on whether or not to decide to inform members of the
administration that they will not be invited to any Faculty Senate
meetings until the contract is signed. Some faculty felt that
administrators should not be allowed to speak to the Faculty Senate
until a contract is signed. Others said that we participate in shared
governance and are not compromised by speaking to administrators.
Some professors felt that we should do something, even though it would
cause disadvantages for faculty. Another professor said that we
should be able to arrange for administrators to come onto our turf
when we want to and should use this opportunity to assertively deal
with issues that are important to us.
VII. Motion on Fact Finder's Recommendation - A faculty member
suggested that the senate vote to support the fact finder's recom-
mendation and ask the Board of Trustees to accept it. Others respond-
ed that the Faculty Senate Constitution and Bylaws state that the
senate may discuss collective bargaining issues but must not take
official action on them. Motions one and two by Jim Farrell were read
to the senators; and in his absence, Funso Afolayan moved and Guy
Petty seconded parts A and C of motion one. Another senator called a
point of order and said that we cannot address this motion without a
two-thirds vote to change the senate constitution, because the motion
is directly about collective bargaining issues.
A friendly amendment was made to reword section A to say "The Faculty
Senate of the University of New Hampshire deplores the Board of
Trustees' failure to accept the recommendations of the independent
fact finder and thereby end the contract impasse with the UNH
faculty". Section C adds that "The Faculty Senate applauds the AAUP
for its willingness to compromise and for its acceptance of the fact
finder's report in the interest of ending the contract impasse."
A professor said that we must act in accordance with section nine of
the Faculty Senate Constitution and Bylaws, because that clause was
inserted in the constitution so that there could never be
two voices by the faculty on collective bargaining issues. A motion
was made and seconded to carry over the issue to the next Faculty
Senate meeting. A senator asked that written copies of the constitu-
tion be sent to all faculty senators. The motion to table the main
motion until the next senate meeting passed.
VIII. Adjournment - The meeting was adjourned.