Faculty Senate Minutes Summary Sept. 10, 2007
I. Roll – The following senators were absent: Barcelona,
Park, and Tenczar. Guests were Mark Rubinstein, Anne Lawing,
David Cross, and Paul Dean.
II. Emergency preparedness–Deputy Police Chief Paul
Dean is the university’s emergency management coordinator.
This year the police are walking through the academic buildings
in the daytime in addition to their usual nighttime patrols.
The university has installed a siren and loud-speaker system
which can be activated from a distance, to inform people
on campus about threats. Announcements on radio stations,
a phone tree system, and text messaging could be used as
well; and it may be possible to get the fire alarm system
to give verbal warnings of threats. Possibly the university
may invest in a reverse 911 system which could call and leave
a message on all university phones, as well as cell phones
or off-campus phones that were programmed into the system.
The focus is on redundant communication in order to reach
the maximum number of people.
Anne Lawing, the senior assistant vice president for student
affairs and academic services, said that the number one cause
of disruptive behavior by students is the overuse of alcohol.
Any violent or disruptive behavior is dealt with according
to the “Student Rights, Rules and Responsibilities” document,
which is the student handbook. Students who are deemed to
be a danger to themselves or others may face temporary or
interim restrictions including eviction or suspension. Students
have the right to due process. The Clery Act is a federal
law which states that all universities must report certain
crimes and produce timely warnings of any on-going or repeated
threat. Such information might be disseminated on email,
flyers and/or the university website. Anne Lawing said that
records of local arrests are shared with deans’ offices
and others in the university community and that conduct records,
internal to UNH, are shared with people who have a need to
know, as specified by the federal privacy law. The privacy
law affects what information can be shared. Students with
mental health issues may be undiagnosed or have medication
prescribed to control the condition.
Faculty or staff who are concerned about a student could
communicate with the Police Dispatch Center at 2-1427 or
call 911, depending on the urgency of the situation, or could
discuss the matter with the office of the vice president
for student and academic services (2-2053) or the University
Counseling Center (2-2090). The counseling center has a presentation
on managing difficult people and would like to present this
program to university departments. The university also has
a procedure on how to deal with harassing emails. A professor
suggested that there should be drills, to help faculty be
more aware of how to respond in an emergency. The deputy
police chief responded that the police would be happy to
run drills but do not want to disrupt the teaching time.
There are table-top exercises, and some opportunity to test
and drill would be valuable. Interested departments or units
should contact the university police department.
If a problem were to occur on the Wildcat Transit System
in a neighboring town, the university police would coordinate
their response with the local police in that town and with
the state police, according to a mutual aid agreement. University
personnel may reach a mental health worker at any time by
calling the University Counseling Center. If it is not open,
the caller will be redirected to a mental health worker at
Portsmouth Regional Hospital. University classrooms generally
do not have locks. If a shooter were in a hallway, people
in nearby classrooms should close and barricade the doors.
Police can reach any place on campus within a few minutes.
Faculty would like to be told if they are teaching a student
who has made threats or violent writings. Universities are
reevaluating what they can and should do under the Clery
Act and the federal privacy laws. The university tries to
look at each student holistically and evaluate the situation.
A senator suggested that the university should give training
to the teaching assistants on how to deal with various threats
or emergencies. The university is trying to communicate with
various groups and constituencies and will soon provide a
one or two-page document on how to deal with threats or emergency
situations, with additional documentation that could be accessed
if desired. If a student has been dismissed, would the teachers
be told, in case the student were to return to campus? Anne
Lawing said that the associate dean could notify faculty
and staff if necessary. Mark Rubinstein said that, if a student
is known to have made a threat against a faculty member or
someone else, the university would notify the person who
was threatened. [Dr. Rubinstein would like to add that it
is important to understand that the greater threat than harm
to others is harm to self. The Center for Disease Control
estimates that approximately 1,100 college students commit
suicide in a typical year and a far larger number attempt
suicide, and so incidents in which others are harmed are
relatively less common than incidents in which students in
distress harm themselves.]
III. Remarks by and questions to the chair – The senate
chair welcomed the senators to the Faculty Senate and stated
that the senate plays an important role in shared governance
and is the voice of the faculty on academic issues. Senators
need to work to make sure that this voice will be heard.
Currently with work to rule in place, the senate’s
Agenda Committee is monitoring the situation to try to make
sure that no academic changes are made without the appropriate
shared governance and faculty input. The senate chair said
that in the senate meetings he must act as a neutral moderator,
and he asks senators to address their comments to the chair
and not to indulge in ad hominem comments. Senators who have
not yet spoken on a given issue will be given priority over
those who have already addressed the matter.
IV. Minutes – The senate unanimously approved the
minutes of the last Faculty Senate meeting.
V. Orientation – The senate chair said that the senate
is most effective when issues are reviewed by a senate committee,
so that information can be gathered and a good motion crafted,
before the matter is considered by the full senate. The senate
chair asked the senators to familiarize themselves with the
orientation document which was sent to them, summarizing
how the senate functions and how to use Robert’s Rules
of Order.
VI. Senate policy on motions of censure – On behalf
of the senate’s Agenda Committee, Ruth Sample moved
the procedure on motions of censure as follows.
The procedure outlined follows (and largely quotes) the
Collective Bargaining Agreement between the USNH Board of
Trustees and the UNH Chapter of the AAUP procedure described
in Section 14.2.4 with appropriate changes.
When a motion of censure by the Faculty Senate of an individual
for specific actions has been moved and seconded, the following
order of procedures will be followed:
1. The motion of censure is tabled.
2. Conference by the Agenda Committee of the Faculty Senate
with appropriate administrators and/or faculty. Case may
be resolved by mutual agreement among the aggrieved parties,
dismissed, or referred to the Professional Standards Committee.
3. The Professional Standards Committee of the Faculty
Senate informally inquires into the situation, attempts to
mediate a mutually agreeable resolution, and, if no resolution
is reached, makes a recommendation concerning censure to
the Faculty Senate Agenda Committee and the Faculty Senate.
4. The motion of censure is debated and voted upon by the
Faculty Senate.
Censure (4): An adverse judgement, unfavourable opinion,
hostile criticism; blaming, finding fault with, or condemning
as wrong; expression of disapproval or condemnation. (From
The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed., (1989); http: dictionary.oed.com.
Retrieved 27 March 2007)
Because the above is a motion from a senate committee, no
second is needed. The Agenda Committee members think that
a procedure is needed which includes gathering facts and
consulting with those involved. The senate chair said that
he believes this motion is compatible with the collective
bargaining agreement. He added that this charge to the Professional
Standards Committee would be independent of any other role
that the Professional Standards Committee may have. The procedure
provides a mechanism to deal with any privacy issues which
may exist. As part of this procedure, any recommendation
by the Professional Standards Committee would be presented
to the Faculty Senate for debate and a senate vote. Complex
issues need to be dealt with deliberately and cautiously,
and this procedure would do that. The definition of censure
is explained clearly in the procedure, and the degree of
disapproval could be made explicit in any motion of censure.
Censure is a serious matter because it could affect promotion
or a search for new employment. A motion of censure expresses
disapproval, whereas a motion of no confidence says that
the Faculty Senate has lost confidence in the person’s
ability to act effectively. The procedures recommended today
will help ensure that the senate’s decisions are credible
and based on all the facts.
The Professional Standards Committee is a senate committee,
but its members are elected from among the faculty at large.
Item two of the procedure allows the Agenda Committee in
some circumstances to resolve the matter without referring
it to the PSC. However, the Agenda Committee would have to
report this to the senate, which might choose to overrule
the Agenda Committee, if a senator were to propose a motion
to do so. Last spring, as a result of a compromise among
the parties, the motion the senate passed did not explicitly
mention censure but said “We the Faculty Senate register
our strongest disapproval of the Dean’s response to
a Chair defending the interest of his department. We find
the response unacceptable.”
A senator expressed concern about delaying censure motions
by sending them to committee; and last year’s chair
of the Professional Standards Committee replied that his
committee met last spring for twenty hours in one week, to
gather facts and consult with the people involved promptly,
in order to deal with the motion of censure in a timely fashion.
Today a friendly amendment was accepted that the last sentence
in item two should read: “Case may be resolved by mutual
agreement among the aggrieved parties, dismissed, or referred
to the Professional Standards Committee.” The motion
with this amendment passed unanimously.
VII. Senate policy on motions of no confidence – On
behalf of the senate’s Agenda Committee, Ruth Sample
moved the procedure on motions of no confidence as follows.
The procedure outlined follows (and largely quotes) the
Collective Bargaining Agreement between the USNH Board of
Trustees and the UNH Chapter of the AAUP procedure described
in Section 14.2.4 with appropriate changes.
When a motion of no confidence by the Faculty Senate of
an individual or individuals has been moved and seconded,
the following order of procedures will be followed:
1. The motion of no confidence is tabled.
2. Conference by the Agenda Committee of the Faculty Senate
with appropriate administrators and/or faculty. Case may
be resolved by mutual agreement among the aggrieved parties,
dismissed, or referred to the Academic Affairs Committee.
3. The Academic Affairs Committee of the Faculty Senate
informally inquires into the situation, attempts to mediate
a mutually agreeable resolution and, if no resolution is
reached, makes a recommendation concerning no confidence
to the Faculty Senate Agenda Committee and the Faculty Senate.
4. The motion of no confidence is debated and voted upon
by the Faculty Senate.
No Confidence: A statement that the person or persons in
question has or have lost the confidence of the Faculty Senate
in the person’s ability to act effectively.
After a brief discussion, the motion passed unanimously.
VIII. Senate committees – The list of Faculty Senate
standing committee members and chairs and the committee charges
have been sent to the senators. The senate chair said that
each committee should look at its charges and decide when
the committee should deal with each charge, consistent with
work to rule. The senate chair said that he will meet with
the committee chairs soon to discuss the charges and the
functioning of each committee. The senate chair announced
that the new faculty members of the senate’s University
Curriculum and Academic Policies Committee are Clayton Barrows,
Lawrence Prelli, Elizabeth Slomba, and James Tucker. Most
of UCAPC’s faculty members are elected by the faculty
in their college. The newly-elected members of the senate’s
Professional Standards Committee are Professors Michael Carter,
Lee Seidel and Susan Walsh.
When not under work-to-rule, the senate and the Agenda Committee
meet frequently with the president and the provost. Also
the senate standing committees consult regularly with their
corresponding administrators. However, under work-to-rule,
the senate and its committees do not meet with administrators
unless that is needed for a special reason of importance
to faculty. In general unless faculty decide to make a special
exception, decisions on academic matters should be frozen
during work-to-rule. Last fall, the Faculty Senate passed
motions on this; and the senate is carrying through on those
motions. For example, the decision on implementation of the
Discovery Program will be held in abeyance by the senate
until after work-to-rule is over. Most of the senate committee
charges will also be held until work-to-rule is finished.
The Faculty Senate now must be especially vigilant to see
that decisions on academic matters are not taken by the administration
without shared governance. The senate chair and vice chair
do meet with the administration during work-to-rule and will
reiterate the above during those meetings.
IX. Adjournment – Today’s meeting was adjourned.
Home |
Archive |
Subscribe/Unsubscribe
Contact
