UNH Faculty Senate

Summary Minutes from 27 September 1999

I.  Roll - The following Faculty Senate members were absent:  de la Torre,
Macieski, McConnell, Roh, and Turner.  Absent as work to rule were Barretto,
Christie, Echt, Garland, Planalp, Reardon and Stine.  Excused was Hiller.

II.  Communications from the Chair - The Faculty Senate chair said that,
because there are no classes on October 11, the Faculty Senate meeting
schedule will be modified so that the next two senate meetings will be held
on October 18 and 25. Senate committees may meet on October 11.  The senate
chair passed out a letter from Joan Tambling, explaining why she declined
to attend today's senate meeting, and also    information on current
proposals for responsibility-centered management.  Under RCM revenues, item
one would include credit weighting factors of 1.4 for CEPS and 0.7 for
Liberal Arts.  Under RCM expenses, item one regarding charges per square
footage may be deleted.  Under other aspects of the RCM model, items two,
three and four would require approval by USNH and are needed for the
continuation of the RCM plan.

III.  Minutes - The minutes of the last meeting were approved unanimously
when modified so that the first sentence in the last paragraph reads, "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".

IV.  Responsibility-Centered Management - The senate chair said that the
Faculty Senate will continue to discuss RCM through the senate's last
meeting in November.  Ken Appel said that clarification on RCM statistics
is needed and that the senate should see that the charges of the various
committees with RCM oversight are spelled out in detail.  The senate
should consider carefully how faculty will be involved in governing the
university before and after RCM is instituted.

A professor asked what justification there is for weighting only CEPS and
Liberal Arts.  The formula is still under discussion but was proposed so
that the opening budgets would be the same as now.  The provost will have
a pool of money to balance inequities, but the CEPS dean wanted a method
of automatic weighting as part of the RCM plan.  There is a difference
between the colleges in the standard number of credit hours per course,
and the credit hours in CEPS are set in accordance with decisions by the
accrediting board.  Concern was expressed about the weighting proposal
and the fact that it does not include the other colleges as well.

Professor Thomas Ballestero recently visited the University of Minnesota
on behalf of the faculty here, to inquire about the version of RCM in use
there; and his report is available on the RCM web site.  Most
universities do not use a square footage fee, because it adds a
complication which is not worth the time and cost required to administer
it.  At the University of Minnesota, interdisciplinary efforts were
enhanced rather than prevented by RCM.  It is easier to implement RCM
when economic times are good.  In good times, faculty may not notice the

Faculty are concerned about how the deans will handle savings or
increased revenues from a department.  Will these benefit the department
or go directly to the college?  Such criteria need to be spelled out. 
The dean would be able to redistribute, within the college, faculty
positions which become vacant.  A process for maintaining academic
quality and core curricula and for protecting the academic mission needs
to be ensured.  Units will have more variation in revenues under RCM. 
The senate will continue the discussion of RCM at its next meeting, and
senators are asked to consult with their colleagues.

V.  Introduction of Student Leaders - Kate Kokko and Amanda Wilson,
Student Body President and Vice President, introduced themselves and
presented some of the issues on which the Student Senate is working. 
These include voter registration, an on-line book swap, legal advice for
students, bus service, general education, parking, housing, and
advocating better university funding.  Students would like to be part of
the decision-making process.
VI.  Communications with the President - The president said that the
university will ask the trustees for permission to move ahead with plans
for an additional residence hall and dining hall, to be funded with bonds
which would be paid for out of student fees for room and board.  The new
residence hall may have an area set aside for honors students.  Possible
locations for the new halls were discussed.  A request was made that
consideration be given to a central location for a faculty/staff club.  A
new capital campaign will start up soon, and construction of a new
performing arts facility may be funded by donations. 

Our campus has two hundred structures of which eighty are core facilities
under state funding.  We need to set up a plan with the governor and the
state for the orderly renovation of these essential buildings.  The Board
of Trustees is working to redefine both its own committee structure and
the structure of the system administration.  The trustees have defined
twenty goals for this year.  The mission statement for UNH needs to be
updated to more clearly differentiate our mission from those of the other
institutions in the system.  In the past, the university president could
not submit a separate budget to the trustees, and they received an
aggregate budget prepared by the system.  Board of Trustee meetings are
public, but some of the trustee committee meetings which deal with
personnel or collective bargaining issues are closed.

As soon as a collective bargaining contract is reached, the president
would like the collective bargaining process to be reworked, probably
with the help of outside consultants as well as the input of all the
parties.  The president has often shared with the trustees her concern
that the present process has the potential to damage the university.   

VII.  Collective Bargaining - Professor Steve Fan gave an update on the
history and current status of the contract negotiations.  During
bargaining, the system negotiators always say that the budget is already
set and that there is no more money than they have offered.  However,
each time a contract is signed, additional funds are made available for
both faculty and staff salaries.  The factfinder has made his recommenda-
tion, which the union accepted but the system did not.  After that, the
chief negotiators of each side met; and the system asked the union to
accept a salary package lower than the factfinder recommended.  However,
the union feels that, even with the salary package recommended by the
factfinder, faculty salaries would not reach parity with the average
salaries at similar nearby universities.  A mediator is now being chosen.

When a contract is eventually signed, raises for faculty will be
retroactive to the beginning of the contract period; but faculty will not
receive interest on the salary money which was held by the system during
the retroactive period.  Research funding on a per faculty basis at UNH
is the highest in New England, and so is the teaching load.  For the
first year of the contract negotiations, the union did not recommend any
action by the faculty to agitate for a contract, but now the union asks
that faculty apply work to rule in order to encourage the system to agree
to a suitable contract.  A professor asked if the AAUP could get articles
in the newspapers each week to clarify the continuing status of the
collective bargaining at UNH.

VIII.  Adjournment - The meeting was adjourned.

to the main Minutes page.