2009-10 Faculty Senate Minutes Summary May 3, 2010
June 23, 2010
I. Roll – The following senators were absent: Beane, Dusek, Fraas, Howard, Kaen, Lanier, Morgan, and Simos. Guests were Julie Simpson and Tammy Goldberg.
II. Minutes – The minutes of the last senate meeting were approved unanimously.
III. Remarks by and questions to the chair – The senate chair said that the Agenda Committee met with Karen Hersey, who is a professor at Franklin Pierce Law Center with an expertise in copyright law, to discuss intellectual property rights; and the Agenda Committee found that discussion very helpful. Informational clinics on this subject will be held for faculty in the spring, and also the senate office will forward to the senators the relevant portion of the Agenda Committee minutes. Faculty with additional questions may contact Karen Hersey. Also, at 9:00 p.m. on 5/4/2010, National Public Television will show the new film, “College, Inc.”, focusing on the commercialization and corporatization of colleges and universities. The senate chair said that it has been an honor to serve with the faculty senators this year and thanked them all and especially the Agenda Committee members, the standing committee chairs and the senate’s program coordinator. The senate chair also expressed the hope that as a senate we will create conditions where all senators, including female and non-tenured faculty, will feel comfortable to be fully participatory and to express their and their colleagues’ concerns on the senate floor.
IV. Report on RCM, from the Finance and Administration Committee – The chair of the senate’s Finance and Administration Committee said that, while it recognizes that many critical details have yet to be decided, the FAC supports the recommendations from the Central Budget Committee to the President concerning RCM. The goals of the recent review were to align RCM incentives with institutional goals, to identify a source of central strategic funds, to simplify RCM, to develop greater financial accountability for all units including central service units, to establish criteria and process for subventions, and to implement strong incentives for net revenue growth.
In this plan, the current RCM model would be adjusted to (1) fund the central administration with a percentage of specific revenue streams, which are undergraduate, graduate and continuing education net tuition, mandatory fees, room and board revenue net of debt service, and state appropriations; (2) allocate state appropriation revenue for resident financial aid, central administration for academic services including the library, academic affairs and academic technology, and subvention funds used to provide financial support to mission critical activities that cannot fully fund themselves; (3) adjust the credit-hour weighting values for undergraduate and continuing education net tuition allocations to fully reflect the cost of instruction; (4) adjust the percentage splits for facilities and administrative recovery revenue to seventy percent to the responsibility center, twenty percent to central administration, and ten percent to the support fund of the principal investigator; (5) allow units to access up to twenty percent of their current fund reserve balance if the balance exceeds six percent of current fund operating revenues; (6) develop and maintain a strategic initiative fund that will be used by the president to provide funding for major strategic investments; (7) require central administration units to present budget proposals to the Central Budget Committee every three years; and conduct a formal review of RCM no sooner than fiscal year 2017; and (8) implement the above changes in fiscal year 2012.
The Central Budget Committee will spend fiscal year 2011 working on the following: (1) work with each unit to develop a transition plan and understand the opportunities and challenges for each unit in the new model, (2) develop and analyze the RCM model using FY 2010 results, (3) determine credit hour weighting for undergraduate and continuing education net tuition allocations, (4) determine the split of facilities and administrative revenue recovery for grants where the host unit of the grant and the home unit of the principal investigator are different, (5) establish specific criteria for strategic initiative allocations, (6) finalize revenue assessment rates, (7) develop a final recommendation for addressing the accumulated deficit in COLSA, (8) develop financial performance metrics for each responsibility center unit, and (9) develop and update policies and procedures for reserves, the Central Budget Committee role and process, the mitigation process, etc.
To sum up, the proposed RCM model would be the same as the current model regarding expenses, except that there would be no institutional overhead expense charge and the revenue for institutional overhead would be funded by a percentage of revenue streams. In the revenue category, a percentage of UNH-Durham and UNH-Manchester undergraduate net tuition would be allocated to the UNH central administration. The remainder of UNH-Manchester undergraduate net tuition would be retained by UNH-Manchester; and the remainder of the UNH-Durham tuition would be allocated to the schools and colleges and academic affairs based on the weighted, average credit hours taught. A percentage of the net graduate tuition would be allocated to the UNH central administration, with the remainder retained by the unit of matriculation. Inter-college program revenues would flow to the Graduate School; administrative costs would be funded and the remainder allocated to the unit of instruction based on the credit hours taught. A percentage of the net continuing education tuition would be allocated to the UNH central administration; and the remainder of the net tuition would be allocated to the units on the basis of weighted credit hours taught. Regarding state appropriations, a percentage of the program appropriation units’ revenue would be allocated to the UNH central administration; and the remainder would be allocated to the designated PAU. Also, a percentage of the state appropriation would be allocated to resident financial aid; and the remainder would cover costs of the UNH library, academic affairs, and academic technology. Regarding facilities and administration cost recovery, ten percent would go to the principle investigator, seventy percent to the host unit of the grant, and twenty percent to the central administration. If a principle investigator has a grant administered in a unit other than his or her home unit, the default distribution of cost recovery has not yet been determined. Interest and grant income, gifts, and course and student fees allocation would be the same as now. A percentage of mandatory fee and room and board revenue net of debt service expense would be allocated to the central administration, and the remainder would go to the unit of the activity.
In answer to a question, the Finance and Administration Committee chair said that the research office is part of the central administration and would share in those operating funds. He said that David Proulx’s office will have data to compare and project the RCM models and that this office has been willing to share information with the FAC. A senator said that, given the gravity of the RCM changes, the senate should watch over these matters next year, and each senator should report to the departmental colleagues.
V. Reports from the Student Affairs Committee – The chair of the senate’s Student Affairs Committee thanked and recognized the significant contributions of each of the committee members this year. Its first charge was to review how the administration is progressing on the matter of field trip guidelines and the shift of the cost for transportation to the departments. The SAC met with UNH Attorney Ron Rodgers and Associate Provost Leigh Anne Melanson and worked on a decision tree to be used along with written guidelines. The UNH field trip policy guidelines, decision tree, and risk management statement have been emailed to all faculty senators, who should share this information with their departmental colleagues. Faculty should consult the guidelines for definitions, because in many types of situations the university states that students are responsible for their own transportation and that the faculty member should not coordinate transportation or arrange carpools. For course field trips, the SAC met with Dick Cannon, Dirk Timmons, David Proulx and Anthony Zizos to discuss a workable and cost-effective solution for vehicle access. The SAC decided to support the lease option proposed by the administration, with the caveat that leasing be considered a three-year trial/experiment during which time the university will collect usage data. Data collection is critical over the next three years in order to review the success of this decision. In this long-term leasing option, seven new vehicles of eleven to fifteen seats each would be leased from a private vendor for the academic year. Persons designated to make reservations in colleges/departments would use an online reservation system, and reservations would be on a first-come, first-served basis. This plan would replace ZipCar on campus.
The SAC agreed that, when considering the usage and projected cost data currently available, the lease option appears to be the most cost-effective solution, as well as the most flexible. Flexibility is a critical feature of any cost-effective plan, because the committee is concerned that the data used to determine the projected number of vehicles needed may not be entirely accurate, thereby presenting the possibility that vehicle purchases would not be targeted to the optimal number of vehicles. The weakness of the data that was collected is also appreciated by the administrators. Although the methods of collection appear sound, some faculty members believe that the data provided from some departments may have lacked accuracy. Further, there are eight owned vehicles currently being used on campus, and the extent to which this will affect estimated new vehicle use remains unknown. As a result, long-term leasing seems to be the best option for now. Collecting usage data over the next few years is important, in order to have a better understanding of use patterns and need; and the lease partner will be using an online reservation system that should be able to track usage. Also, keeping hard copies of rental receipts would be helpful. The SAC recommends that usage monitoring be a charge for the SAC in the coming three years.
The SAC’s second charge was to confer with the registrar and consider how to deal with the Higher Education Act, which requires universities to list the prices of the required and recommended textbooks for each course to the “maximum extent practicable” on an online course schedule before preregistration or registration. The SAC completed this charge, with motion XIV-M4 passed by the senate on 11/2/09. The SAC was also charged to observe the use of the UNH booklist by faculty in the spring semester of 2010, assessing both ease of usage concerns and percent of faculty using the booklist. The SAC requested a charge be made for next year, to monitor the booklist use and make recommendations. Faculty members have expressed concerns and comments that have been passed to CIS, and this information will be used to affect changes to the website, etc. The Durham Book Store thanked UNH for including that store on the website and also expressed concern about the addition of the ISBN on the booklist, as required by federal law.
Another SAC charge was to consider whether advising at UNH should be done in a paperless fashion and how that would affect cost savings and the quality of student advising. This charge was tabled until the end of work to rule. The SAC was also charged to consider how faculty and students can be better informed about the Behavioral Intervention Team (BIT) which was formed to help students avoid high risk behavior. The SAC invited members of the BIT to speak at a senate meeting last October, and the committee also met with the dean of students. On 11/2/09, the SAC presented to the senate a recommendation that faculty invite the BIT to a departmental meeting to review policies regarding students. The SAC was also charged to review the new administrative separation procedures for students and consult with the Student Senate on this matter. After meeting with Anne Lawing, the SAC suggested edits to the Student Rights, Rules and Responsibilities manual in sections pertaining to student separation; and the Faculty Senate passed motion XIV-M3 endorsing the revised wording on 11/2/09.
VI. Discussion on the disclosure policy on conflict of interest – The senate chair said that concerns exist that faculty may not be sufficiently aware of the disclosure policy regarding financial conflict of interest in research. Julie Simpson said that a university policy on this matter was put in place in 1995 because federal regulations required it. She added that at that time the policy was sent to the senate and that the AAUP signed off on the policy. On 10/19/2009, the Faculty Senate passed a motion modifying the UNH Policy on Misconduct in Scholarly Activity (MISA), to change the section referring to the use of human subjects in research and also the care and use of animals in research and to delete a reference in the MISA policy to the UNH Financial Conflict of Interest in Research Policy. The latter policy states that any employee responsible for the design, conduct, or reporting of research activities funded or proposed for funding at the university by external sources must reveal all current significant financial interests that would reasonably appear to be affected by the research. Significant financial interest is defined as (1) a current financial interest of the investigator and his/her immediate family that could reasonably appear to be affected by the activities proposed for funding or (2) an interest held by the investigator and his/her immediate family in a business entity (company, corporation, or other enterprise) whose financial interests might reasonably appear to be affected by such activities. In response to a question about who should sign contracts on behalf of the university, Julie Simpson said that faculty should consult Victor Sosa, who is the university’s manager of contracts and export control in the Office of Sponsored Research. Tammy Goldberg encouraged faculty to contact her or Julie Simpson with any questions about the Financial Conflict of Interest in Research Policy.
VII. Report from the Academic Affairs Committee, on study away – The Academic Affairs Committee was charged to check on the administration’s response to the 11/5/07 senate motions XII-M4 and XII-M5 and to the 10/8/07 senate motion XII-M3, regarding the university policy on study away. The AAC chair said that there had been a change in the fee structure of the study away programs without appropriate shared governance. This year the committee talked with the directors of the study away programs and was informed that meetings on these matters are still ongoing. Therefore the AAC recommends that the AAC should be charged with this issue again in the next academic year. The past senate chair said that the administration has indicated that it will try to resolve this issue early in the fall.
VIII. Reports from the Campus Planning Committee, on housing and on the New England Center – The Campus Planning Committee’s first charge was to follow up on the implementation of senate motion XIII-M14 regarding the issue of suitable housing for students with families, international graduate students, new and visiting faculty and/or visiting researchers. The CPC chair said that University Architect Doug Bencks met with the Campus Planning Committee twice to talk about this issue and other charges of the committee. The CPC chair also participated in a working group convened by Doug Bencks, related to a market survey on family and graduate student housing. The results of the market survey and Doug Bencks’ recommendations to the Space Allocation Repair and Renovation Committee (SARRC) were sent to the senators on 5/3/09. The next step will be for the university to issue a request for proposals for a public/private partnership to develop an affordable housing complex on the Leewood Orchard property owned by UNH. This initiative may possibly be combined with an offer to rehabilitate tower A of the New England Center, to replace Babcock Hall for graduate student housing.
The past senate chair said that the charge regarding graduate and international student housing was formed because some years ago the university raised the rents in the family housing at Forest Park and demolished a number of housing units there; and the administration had agreed at that time to replace the demolished units by converting some of the Woodside Apartments from undergraduate to family housing; but that did not happen because the administration admitted more undergraduates and did not actualize the plan. The senate’s Campus Planning Committee and many other faculty were concerned about where graduate students and new faculty can live. Any housing at Leewood Orchard would be far in the future, if it ever exists. Immigration law for foreign graduate students limits the number of hours the student may work and prevents the family members from working; and so housing is an important problem. On 4/6/09, the Faculty Senate passed a motion asking President Huddleston and Dick Cannon to convert the Woodside Apartments to family and graduate housing as soon as possible; and in that motion the senate also recommended that graduate housing be increased as part of the vision expressed by the Blue Ribbon Panel on Research at UNH, because the current level of housing is not adequate to support this vision; and the senate said that there should be some faculty representation on the ad-hoc group on family and graduate housing conducted by Dick Cannon et al. Today the CPC chair said that Woodside Apartments may not be a good option for graduate students, because the room size may be inappropriate for that purpose.
The CPC was also charged to look into the future of the New England Center. The CPC chair said that this matter is an ongoing SARRC issue and was discussed in two meetings attended by the CPC chair. Older sections of the NEC have considerable issues of deferred maintenance of heating and cooling systems and asbestos in hotel tower A. The original business model of the NEC, as an attractive conference center in the seacoast area, is no longer working; and the facility has been losing a significant amount of money for a number of years. There are concerns about who will take on the costs for maintaining the building once it is closed. Decisions about repurposing parts of the NEC were discussed briefly in the fall in SARRC but not finalized. This winter an announcement was made that Tower B is being repurposed as undergraduate housing, to compensate for the change of Smith Hall to admissions and other offices. Offices from Schofield House (which is being torn down to make room for the new business school) will occupy the back part of the NEC conference center building. Discussions are ongoing about repurposing the remainder of the complex, and there are no plans to tear down the NEC.
Regarding the ongoing charge to obtain a suitable place for faculty to interact and eat, the CPC chair said that the first iteration of the Dimond Library redesign plan includes an expanded café in the library and adding a university club in place of the current microfilm room on the second floor of the library. There would not be a full kitchen, but facilities would be suitable for warming food prepared elsewhere. The CPC recommends that the Food and Housing Auxiliary should conduct a market survey to identify faculty/staff dining needs and wants.
IX. New business – The senate vice chair expressed the senate’s thanks to Paula Salvio for the excellent leadership she has given to the senate as chair this year.
X. Adjournment – The meeting was adjourned
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
2010-11 FACULTY SENATE
MAY 3, 2010 MINUTES SUMMARY
I. Roll – The following senators were absent: Berenguier, Brown, Chamberlin, Condon, Dusek, Frierson, Howard, Kaen, Laird, Morgan, Newkirk, Pfeiffer, Simos and Taylor.
II. Election of officers – In May of each year, the outgoing senate chair conducts an election by the senate members for the next year’s Agenda Committee members, for one-year terms. Additional candidates may be nominated from the floor, if they have agreed to serve if elected. Today the 2010/11 senators unanimously approved the slate proposed by the 2009/10 Agenda Committee as follows: Ed Hinson as chair, Larry Prelli as vice chair and Ben Cariens, Cathy Frierson, Ted Howard, and Dan Reid as members at large. Paula Salvio will be an ex-officio member as past chair.
III. Remarks by and questions to the chair – The 2010/11 senate chair welcomed the new senators and said that the Agenda Committee will meet regularly this summer and, among other business, will send a committee preference letter to the senators and then set up the membership and chairs for the senate’s standing committees. In addition the faculty senators will be invited to a summer meeting to discuss agenda items for the coming year. The senate chair said that this past year was a challenge because of the continuing contract negotiations and that the senate had dealt with that issue and with work to rule as it had in the past. Senators are invited to review on the senate’s website the three motions (XIV-M7, XIV-M8, and XIV-M10) which the senate passed this spring on that issue. Past minutes, motions, the senate’s constitution and other information may be accessed at http://www.unh.edu/fac-senate/index.html. The senate chair added that all senators represent their department and are asked to report regularly to the department and bring the department’s concerns to the senate. He welcomed all senators to feel comfortable in speaking out and bringing their ideas to the senate. The senate will send a packet of orientation materials to the senators later in the summer.
IV. Adjournment – The meeting was adjourned.