Faculty Senate Minutes Summary Sept. 24, 2007
I. Roll – The following senators were absent: Afolayan,
Calculator, Dowd, Park, and Robertson. Excused were Barcelona,
Barrows, Hamlin, Nimmo and Onosko.
II. Remarks by and questions to the chair – The Agenda
Committee has declined to provide nominees to the Athletics
Advisory Committee and the Diversity Council until work-to-rule
is over. However, the Agenda Committee will meet with Dick
Cannon and Sharon Demers to discuss the new policy on background
checks, because that policy change could have a special impact
on faculty. The committee may bring this matter to the senate
later. After today, Ed Hinson will be the senate parliamentarian.
III. Minutes – The senate unanimously approved the
minutes of the last Faculty Senate meeting.
IV. Shared governance with regard to study abroad programs – David
Richman said that the motion on shared governance unanimously
passed by the Faculty Senate on December 12, 2005, reads
in part as follows.
As we make and support choices among alternative uses of
our limited resources, the Faculty Senate emphasizes that
the standard by which fiscal decisions must be judged is
their effect on academic goals of teaching, learning, research,
artistry, and outreach, never vice versa. A good budget system
serves academic priorities; it does not define them.
The Faculty Senate reaffirms as well its commitment to the
principle that the faculty has primary responsibility for
curriculum, subject matter, methods of instruction, research,
artistry, faculty status, and those aspects of student life
which relate to the educational process. On these matters,
the power of review or final decision lodged in the governing
board, or delegated by it to the president, or delegated
by the president to other administrative officers should
be exercised adversely to the reasoned view of the faculty
only in exceptional circumstances and for reasons communicated
to the faculty.
Below is an excerpt from a letter that David Richman, together
with all those who served as on-site directors of the London
Program, received from Doug Lanier, Professor of English
and current on-campus London Program Director, describing
an administrative decision that seems to violate the principles
and practices of shared governance outlined in that motion.
As Doug describes it, this appears to be an administrative
decision made without consulting the concerned faculty, made
for financial reasons and without reference to academic goals,
and made against the reasoned opposition of concerned faculty.
Although the Agenda Committee is not talking specifically
about the London Program and sees it only as an example,
the Agenda Committee thinks that the Faculty Senate is legitimately
concerned not with the merits of the case but with the means
by which this decision was made: with what goals, in consultation
with whom, and taking account of the reasoned opposition
of concerned faculty in what manner? The Agenda Committee
has asked the senate’s Academic Affairs Committee to
investigate the means by which the decision was made. Questions
which the Academic Affairs Committee may probe may include
but not be limited to the following. By what processes was
this decision reached? How were academic goals taken into
account? To what extent and by what means were concerned
faculty consulted? What response was made, if any, to reasoned
opposition of concerned faculty, if any? Doug's letter reads
in part:
In 2006, the administration (without prior consultation)
decided to change how study abroad programs can charge
their students. These changes affected all study abroad
programs, not just the London Program…. In 2006,
the administration began requiring us to charge students
according to UNH's in-state and out-of-state tuition rates,
even though those don't correspond to what Regent's College
charges the students. There were many negative effects
of this change, most of which I predicted at the time.… It
is, in accounting jargon, a structural problem. But that
problem has been created not by financial mismanagement
of the program or by Regent's College or even by the terrible
exchange rate for the pound, but by the administration's
changing of long-standing budgeting rules. As far as I'm
concerned, those rules make no sense, but no one asked
me (or any other study abroad coordinator, many of whom
are also facing these problems).
The Agenda Committee proposes the following motion. The
rationale is that the Office of Academic Affairs appears
to have made a decision about payment of tuition and fees
for Study Abroad Programs in violation of principles and
practices of shared governance, as outlined in the motion
unanimously passed by the Faculty Senate on December 12,
2005. The Agenda Committee presents for discussion the following
motion:
On behalf of the faculty, the Faculty Senate moves that
implementation of the administration's decision, regarding
the rates by which tuition and fees are charged for Study
Abroad Programs, be suspended until the Academic Affairs
Committee has completed its investigation of that decision
and has communicated its findings and recommendations to
the Faculty Senate and the Faculty Senate has acted on those
findings and recommendations.
Since this is a motion from a committee, no second is needed.
Because the decision to change the rate structure strongly
affects these academic programs, the decision should be made
with faculty input under shared governance. Matters affecting
the curriculum should be decided on by faculty in collaborative
decision making with the administration. Some senators pointed
out that faculty leading study abroad programs must be much
more involved in financial matters than faculty working on
the Durham campus, because much of the study abroad learning
takes place outside of the classroom. Are we asserting a
new right to set tuition and fees? The concern is not the
amount of the fees but that the relevant faculty, such as
the members of the University Committee on Study Abroad,
were not consulted. This is not a claim of a new right but
rather a failure to consult about cascading consequences
regarding an academic program.
Although some universities nationally are beginning to charge
variable tuition, based on the costs of different units and
how much in demand their courses are, in a land-grant institution
there are rules on how education must be available to the
citizens of the state regardless of the ability to pay. The
new fee structure has already been implemented in many but
not all Study Abroad Programs. Some of the programs are based
on memoranda of understanding with the host country or host
institution. There are different kinds of Study Abroad Programs,
and this is a very complicated situation. The senate’s
Academic Affairs Committee should find out if there was a
violation of shared governance and, if so, what would have
been the proper consultation process. Probably the University
Committee on Study Abroad and also the directors of the Study
Abroad Programs should have been consulted. Informing them
of a fait accompli is not shared governance. Faculty should
expect the administration to deal with this matter as laid
out in the motion passed by the Faculty Senate on December
12, 2005, and quoted above.
A professor said that faculty have put a great deal of time
and energy into all the Study Abroad Programs and that it
is an insult to radically change the ability of those programs
to function, without consulting the concerned faculty members.
The point of shared governance is to maintain a consultative
effort among faculty and administrators. Is consultation
enough or is oversight needed? The language of the 2005 motion
addresses this by saying that, on academic matters, “the
power of review or final decision lodged in the governing
board, or delegated by it to the president, or delegated
by the president to other administrative officers should
be exercised adversely to the reasoned view of the faculty
only in exceptional circumstances and for reasons communicated
to the faculty.”
The Agenda Committee has already referred the issue to the
senate’s Academic Affairs Committee for review. Today’s
motion would state that “implementation of the administration's
decision, regarding the rates by which tuition and fees are
charged for Study Abroad Programs, be suspended until the
Academic Affairs Committee has completed its investigation
of that decision and has communicated its findings and recommendations
to the Faculty Senate and the Faculty Senate has acted on
those findings and recommendations.” Should the senate
move to stop these changes? This raises some practical issues.
Many of the students are already paying the new fees, and
changing in mid-stream could have unknown consequences. Fact
finding and recommendations should be done first. The maker
of the motion said that the fact that the senate is seriously
considering asking the administration to cease and desist
on this matter should suggest to all readers of these minutes
how very seriously the faculty senators take an apparent
violation of shared governance. He suggested that, having
made this clear, the senate could table the motion for now.
The Academic Affairs Committee has the charge. The Faculty
Senate voted unanimously to table the motion at the present
time.
V. Senate functioning during work-to-rule – A former
senate chair said that he has served for many terms on the
Faculty Senate and has also served on the AAUP Executive
Committee. He said that, as members of the faculty, all of
us have views on the contract negotiations but, as a Faculty
Senate, we should not take any action whatsoever on bargainable
issues. [Item 9 of the senate constitution states that “Collective
bargaining issues may be discussed, but no official action
may be taken.”] When senate chair, he frequently told
the administration: “If you are making a decision that
affects faculty, consult the faculty before you make the
decision” and also that there needs to be a smooth,
reasonable and fair contract negotiation so that faculty
and administration can have mutual trust and cooperation.
He said that the 9/10/07 senate minutes explain how the
senate operates under work-to-rule. 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. Senate committees
can choose to meet with administrators on issues of special
concern to faculty. In general unless faculty decides 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, and each senate committee will consider if any
of its charges should be exempt from work-to-rule. 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. Please review the three
senate motions on work-to-rule, passed on 10/30/06 and 11/13/06
and available on the Faculty Senate website.
Under work-to-rule, the senate committees review their charges
and decide which should be postponed until after work-to-rule
and which should have a special exception for immediate action.
For example, charges on shared governance or academic freedom
might be acted on right away; and faculty might choose to
participate in searches for senior administrators. It is
also very important to nominate members for the Central Budget
Committee. While faculty is declining to participate in many
issues during work-to-rule, faculty need to strike a delicate
balance and be vigilant that no important academic decisions
are taken by the administration without faculty input. As
stated in the first of the three motions last spring, faculty:
expect the principles enunciated by the president to be
followed by administrative officers at all levels so as to
give the faculty its central voice in these matters….” The
Faculty Senate will take no decisions and no actions during
this period of work-to-rule, and the Faculty Senate expects
the university administration to take no decisions and no
actions on all those areas over which the faculty has primary
or co-equal responsibility. Should such actions be taken,
the Faculty Senate will be prepared to take appropriate action
including but not limited to motions of censure and no confidence.
VI. Other business – The university is currently conducting
a search for a new dean of the library. During work-to-rule,
faculty may choose to participate in searches for senior
administrators. The search committee has a list of candidates
for airport interviews and expects on campus visits in mid
to late October, with meetings to get to know the candidates.
Please contact Brigitte Bailey with any input. A former senate
chair suggested that faculty may wish to ask the candidates
about the extent to which the dean of the library will be
willing to consult with faculty before making decisions.
VII. Adjournment – Today’s meeting was adjourned.
Home |
Archive |
Subscribe/Unsubscribe
Contact
